Is it okay to force a woman to have an ultrasound

[Jeremiah1278]

Do you not believe a woman seeing her baby has a great effect? Its of course possible that most women will reject the option to see their baby even though it is offered, but its important to make sure women at least have a chance to receive the information. This is about protecting women from abortion centers and the biased influence they have over the decision process.

To answer your first question: I don’t think a woman seeing the fetus has a great effect on preventing abortions. One University is releasing a study this year showing that forced viewing of ultrasound images seldom changes the mind of the mother.

rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/06/study-ultrasounds-dont-stop-planned-abortions/

To address your second point: I understand that it’s about protecting women from biased influence. But if a reasonable person concludes (and I think (s)he probably does) that conducting an ultrasound is a required part of obtaining informed consent, then you don’t need a special law. You just sue those doctors who don’t obtain informed consent. Those laws are already developed.

There are two things that drive health care providers to do the ultrasounds:

(1) To confirm there’s a pregnancy. Conducting an abortion is probably medical malpractice if you don’t confirm there’s a pregnancy. That’s going to get you all the ultrasounds, I’m guessing.

(2) Most mothers want to see the ultrasound anyway (that’s what I’m reading). That’s going to get most women to take a peek at the screen while the doctor/technician is working.

This law is based perhaps on a false premise that women have abortions because they aren’t aware that the fetus is a tiny little human. “If we show them that it’s a baby, then they won’t do it!” It’s a nice thought, but sadly it doesn’t seem to work like that.

So, given that the law solves very little and tries to supplant the doctor’s medical discretion with the medical discretion of state legislators (probably former attorneys and businessmen), I don’t think these laws are wise. I’m almost always against the state regulating what is the standard of care. I prefer to have other medical experts in the field define that standard.

Better to attack abortion straight on.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

As has already been stated, abortionists use transvaginal ultrasounds to confirm a pregnancy and assess how far into the pregnancy the woman is. The only difference is the direction in which the monitor will be pointed.

You can read about transvaginal ultrasound from this “Provider’s Guide to Medical Abortion” here:

prochoice.org/education/cme/online_cme/m4ultrasound.asp#3

Jill Stanek’s responded to the “controversy” on her website:

"Furthermore, do abortion proponents really want to “go there” on the topic of vaginal intrusion and rape?

If anything, it is an abortion that is comparable to rape. Abortion is an act of violence, both against the baby and her mother. Abortion is painful, bloody, and involves sharp instruments, certainly much more comparable to forcible rape than an innocuous ultrasound probe"

The full response is here: jillstanek.com/2012/02/abortion-proponents-equate-vaginal-ultrasound-not-abortion-with-rape/

No, they really don’t use transvaginal US very often. So your argument falls apart based on faulty information. I wonder if you understand what an ultrasound even is. Having had several, all that is necessary is a wand placed over one’s abdomen. Well, that and some gooey stuff which is always cold.

and you never answered me: How does giving birth to a baby involve anything penetrating?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

To answer your first question: I don’t think a woman seeing the fetus has a great effect on preventing abortions. One University is releasing a study this year showing that forced viewing of ultrasound images seldom changes the mind of the mother.

rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/06/study-ultrasounds-dont-stop-planned-abortions/

To address your second point: I understand that it’s about protecting women from biased influence. But if a reasonable person concludes (and I think (s)he probably does) that conducting an ultrasound is a required part of obtaining informed consent, then you don’t need a special law. You just sue those doctors who don’t obtain informed consent. Those laws are already developed.

There are two things that drive health care providers to do the ultrasounds:

(1) To confirm there’s a pregnancy. Conducting an abortion is probably medical malpractice if you don’t confirm there’s a pregnancy. That’s going to get you all the ultrasounds, I’m guessing.

(2) Most mothers want to see the ultrasound anyway (that’s what I’m reading). That’s going to get most women to take a peek at the screen while the doctor/technician is working.

**This law is based perhaps on a false premise that women have abortions because they aren’t aware that the fetus is a tiny little human. “If we show them that it’s a baby, then they won’t do it!” It’s a nice thought, but sadly it doesn’t seem to work like that.
**
So, given that the law solves very little and tries to supplant the doctor’s medical discretion with the medical discretion of state legislators (probably former attorneys and businessmen), I don’t think these laws are wise. I’m almost always against the state regulating what is the standard of care. I prefer to have other medical experts in the field define that standard.

Better to attack abortion straight on.

You can’t “peek at the screen” if it’s turned away from you, which is what abortionists currently do when assessing the baby’s age.

The section I bolded goes directly against experience. Come to the mobile pregnancy clinic parked outside Planned Parenthood and watch an abortion-minded woman change her mind as she sees her baby in color 4D on a screen right next to her. It works nearly every time.

 

[Corki]

To address your second point: I understand that it’s about protecting women from biased influence. But if a reasonable person concludes (and I think (s)he probably does) that conducting an ultrasound is a required part of obtaining informed consent, then you don’t need a special law. You just sue those doctors who don’t obtain informed consent. Those laws are already developed.

That would make sense to reasonable people. Unfortunately, the pro-abortion lobby is far from reasonable. In my opinion, they brought this on themselves. I am not sure about the state in the OP but in Texas, abortion providers exempted themselves from informed consent laws that were aimed at other medical procedures and claimed that the IC laws did not apply to abortions. This included informatio about risks and alternatives. The only consent they ever sought was a “yes” to an abortion. It was only by passing specific consent laws (including ultrasound) that the abortion providers have been held accountable for informed consent.

There are two things that drive health care providers to do the ultrasounds:

(1) To confirm there’s a pregnancy. Conducting an abortion is probably medical malpractice if you don’t confirm there’s a pregnancy. That’s going to get you all the ultrasounds, I’m guessing.

(2) Most mothers want to see the ultrasound anyway (that’s what I’m reading). That’s going to get most women to take a peek at the screen while the doctor/technician is working.

While those are two valid reasons for a doctor to do an ultrasound, the most common reason is to accurately date the pregnancy. This information is critical when any other procedure is being considered. This information is also VERY important if an abortion is being considered. Not only are certain types of abortion depended on gestational age but there are state laws that regulate abortions differently depending on gestational age.

The fact that abortionists do not already attempt to accurately date a pregnancy before terminating it is another problem altogether.

As has been pointed out earlier, an accurate gestational age is especially important when a chemical abortion is the goal. When a D&C type abortion is planned, there are other medical concerns that should be ruled out and ultrasound is a good way to do that. I ran into this myself when I had a D&C scheduled for an incomplete miscarriage (baby had died but not naturally expelled). There is no way they would have done the D&C without an ultrasound first (and they ended up not doing the D&C based on what they found) but abortionists routinely skip that important step.

This law is based perhaps on a false premise that women have abortions because they aren’t aware that the fetus is a tiny little human. “If we show them that it’s a baby, then they won’t do it!” It’s a nice thought, but sadly it doesn’t seem to work like that.

I am sure that goes into it. It is not entirely faulty since there is considerable evidence that many women who are referred to pro-life pregnancy resource centers for an ultrasound change their minds about abortions. It may not be the majority but it is a significant number.

However, a bigger (and non-religious) reason to support this law is that it forces abortionists to provide a standard of care that they have skirted for too long.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

You can’t “peek at the screen” if it’s turned away from you, which is what abortionists currently do when assessing the baby’s age.

The section I bolded goes directly against experience. Come to Planned Parenthood and watch an abortion-minded woman change her mind as she sees her baby in color 4D on a screen right next to her. It works nearly every time.

They use color 4D! at PP? I don’t think my insurance pays for that, and I want to see my baby.

If a mother wants to see the ultrasound and a doctor or tech doesn’t let her see it, I think that is wrong. If a mother doesn’t want to see the ultrasound, I’m not convinced it’s the roll of the state legislature to decide for the medical/ethical experts that it is necessary for her to give informed consent.

Anyway. If it passes and more women choose life, I’ll be happy. I hope you’re right.

 

[CMatt25]

Is it okay? It depends on if you think government intrudes too much in our lives and wants to take away our liberties, and if you want to be consistent.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

They use color 4D! at PP? I don’t think my insurance pays for that, and I want to see my baby.

If a mother wants to see the ultrasound and a doctor or tech doesn’t let her see it, I think that is wrong. If a mother doesn’t want to see the ultrasound, I’m not convinced it’s the roll of the state legislature to decide for the medical/ethical experts that it is necessary for her to give informed consent.

Anyway. If it passes and more women choose life, I’ll be happy. I hope you’re right.

I apologize for the way I wrote that, I corrected my post. It is a mobile crisis pregnancy clinic (tour bus sized) and the Knights of Columbus helped fund the 4D ultrasound unit. No way does PP have that equipment and even if they did, they would not let the woman see her baby. I have heard many confirmations that if a woman does request to see the ultrasound, the tech in PP will move the wand away from the baby and show her nothing more than the lining of her uterus. That is, after all, what is being aborted, “a clump of tissue,” or “a few cells.” How could they show a woman an actual baby and expect to her agree to kill it?

This law has already passed and been upheld in Texas, and I will be very intrigued to see how this affects PP’s bottom line.

The original bill in Texas did REQUIRE the woman to see the ultrasound, but it was modified to require the clinic to perform the US, and if the woman does not want to see it, she has to sign off that she waves her rights. I’m down with that. It’s a good step on the way to eliminating abortion.

 

[TraderTif]

lifenews.com/2012/02/21/planned-parenthood-already-rapes-women-in-pre-abortion-ultrasound/

 

[Jeremiah1278]

I apologize for the way I wrote that, I corrected my post . . . (snip, snip) . . . How could they show a woman an actual baby and expect to her agree to kill it?

This law has already passed and been upheld in Texas, and I will be very intrigued to see how this affects PP’s bottom line.

The original bill in Texas did REQUIRE the woman to see the ultrasound, but it was modified to require the clinic to perform the US, and if the woman does not want to see it, she has to sign off that she waves her rights. I’m down with that. It’s a good step on the way to eliminating abortion.

Oh no apology necessary. Whether a woman can actually give informed consent to an abortion without seeing the ultrasound is good point. I’ll certainly continue to think about it all.

 

[St_Francis]

Except a woman chooses and consents to an abortion. The new legislation would force a procedure even if the doctor finds it is unnecessary and the woman does not want it.

Where are all the Catholics who have been arguing for freedom in medical care?

Is it okay? It depends on if you think government intrudes too much in our lives and wants to take away our liberties, and if you want to be consistent.

lifenews.com/2012/02/21/planned-parenthood-already-rapes-women-in-pre-abortion-ultrasound/

Dan and Matt,
I hope you will each take a moment to read the short article linked by Trader. It shows how abortionists already generally use ultrasound, and what the consequences can be for skipping an ultrasound.

 

[St_Francis]

Except a woman chooses and consents to an abortion. The new legislation would force a procedure even if the doctor finds it is unnecessary and the woman does not want it.

Where are all the Catholics who have been arguing for freedom in medical care?

Is it okay? It depends on if you think government intrudes too much in our lives and wants to take away our liberties, and if you want to be consistent.

You two both seem to think that conservatives think there is no role for the government. This is not true. Conservatives believe there is a role for the government, and that the government in the US has overstepped the bounds in some areas and negelected its duties in other areas. Liberals happen to disagree with the areas of intrusiin and neglect.

There is no call to try to bring freedom from government intrusion in, and we can surely all agree that protecting women by ensuring proper medical procedure and that ensuring that consent is indeed fully informed are both good things and appropriate government actions.

 

[LucyLight]

No its not okay to force a woman to have an ultrasound. Its not okay to force a woman to do anything. It is okay to deny someone a service if they are not willing to follow the legal requirements imposed.

 

[juliee]

Planned Parenthood Rape Myth Debunked, 99% Do Ultrasounds

Richmond, VA - Abortion advocates in Virginia have come under heavy criticism for equating the ultrasounds legislation there would allow women to see before an abortion to rape. Yet, while abortion backers say having an ultrasound is like getting raped, a 2003 study shows 99% of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities do them beforehand.

lifenews.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-rape-myth-debunked-99-do-ultrasounds/

 

[silenced]

What would be the purpose? There has to be a reason to do the test. The situation in the OP isn’t just randomly giving ultrasounds for no reason. It is for a specific result.

Let’s say a woman chooses to work in a lab with exposure to radiation. The employer can only employ non-pregnant women in this particular lab. If the vaginal ultra-sound is the only way to ensure that they aren’t unintentionally exposing a child to fatal radiation, then “yes”, it would be okay to require an untrasound if the woman chooses to pursue that job.

Fatal radiation?? Please explain this comment.

 

[silenced]

No its not okay to force a woman to have an ultrasound. Its not okay to force a woman to do anything. It is okay to deny someone a service if they are not willing to follow the legal requirements imposed.

Along these lines of thinking, then, ultrasound should not be required by law. This is nothing more than manipulation of a woman’s reproductive life, and it is reprehensible.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Along these lines of thinking, then, ultrasound should not be required by law. This is nothing more than manipulation of a woman’s reproductive life, and it is reprehensible.

Manipulation of a woman’s reproductive life? We are talking about women who are about to take the life of their unborn child! That’s not reproduction! Reproduction i.e. creation of a child, is done long before the ultrasound takes place. Is it manipulation of a woman’s reproductive life to have an ultrasound if she plans to keep her baby?

Your logic is flawed.

 

[seekerz]

In response to the OP, I would say my feeling is “no”. Sadly, abortion is legal - as much as we oppose it - so the decision on whether, when and how to do an ultrasound should be based on medical expertise. Most surgical procedures are not described in graphic detail prior to being carried out, so while I understand the intent of this legislation, I do not really see a consent issue here. It might be hard to accept that women who seek abortion have full knowledge of what it entails, but that if often the case.

I might add that mandating ***any ***medical procedure in the absence of medical experts deeming it necessary, does not make sense to me (and I do see a precedent here). While I find that comparing this legislation to rape is extreme, I see ethical issues in non-medical personnel unilaterally deciding (even with the best of intentions) what interventions a doctor must perform.

 

[jilly4ski]

In response to the OP, I would say my feeling is “no”. Sadly, abortion is legal - as much as we oppose it - so the decision on whether, when and how to do an ultrasound should be based on medical expertise.** Most surgical procedures are not described in graphic detail prior to being carried out**, so while I understand the intent of this legislation, I do not really see a consent issue here. It might be hard to accept that women who seek abortion have full knowledge of what it entails, but that if often the case.

I might add that mandating ***any ***medical procedure in the absence of medical experts deeming it necessary, does not make sense to me (and I do see a precedent here). While I find that comparing this legislation to rape is extreme, I see ethical issues in non-medical personnel unilaterally deciding (even with the best of intentions) what interventions a doctor must perform.

I don’t know what kind of experience you have, but in my limited experience, my surgical removal of my wisdom teeth was described in great graphic detail. I was told that they would cut my gums open and for the bottom impacted teeth, they would drill to break the tooth in half, then after pulling out the exposed part of the tooth, the back part would half to be extracted by pressure on my gums. I was shown pictures, models and my own x-rays, of the area and the procedure. As well as pictures of the risks of waiting for the procedure, including roots, being entangled in the nerve at the bottom of the jaw.

As to your second point, a) legislatures make fact finding decisions all the time, in things they are not professionals or experts in, they do studies and ask professionals b) the state regulates the medical field, they license doctors and procedures, they consider this their job to protect the public c) If a doctor preformed an abortion without doing an ultrasound, it is already malpractice, this law just attaches new penalties to the doctors failure. (And slightly new liability, as even if he doesn’t screw up he is still liable).

 

[seekerz]

I don’t know what kind of experience you have, but in my limited experience, my surgical removal of my wisdom teeth was described in great graphic detail. I was told that they would cut my gums open and for the bottom impacted teeth, they would drill to break the tooth in half, then after pulling out the exposed part of the tooth, the back part would half to be extracted by pressure on my gums. I was shown pictures, models and my own x-rays, of the area and the procedure. As well as pictures of the risks of waiting for the procedure, including roots, being entangled in the nerve at the bottom of the jaw.

As to your second point, a) legislatures make fact finding decisions all the time, in things they are not professionals or experts in, they do studies and ask professionals b) the state regulates the medical field, they license doctors and procedures, they consider this their job to protect the public c) If a doctor preformed an abortion without doing an ultrasound, it is already malpractice, this law just attaches new penalties to the doctors failure. (And slightly new liability, as even if he doesn’t screw up he is still liable).

I have had major surgery more than once, and so have multiple family members - I don’t remember anyone showing a CTscan and saying, “here is you infected appendix”. Many doctors do show images after a procedure, if pictures were taken. So, unless I have never given proper consent, it doesn’t seem to me that images are necessary for someone to understand the essentials of the procedure they are about to undergo. I’m not saying that a woman may not be dissuaded from abortion by an ultrasound or that this not a desirable outcome, but simply that it is a stretch to make this a matter of informed consent. We also have to consider the unintended consequences of legislation of this nature beyond the narrow boundaries of abortion.

As for what is malpractice and what is not…I’d be quite happy to leave those discussions to people qualified to have them. Since I am not a provider of abortions and not familiar with the standard of care for them, I will offer no opinion of whether of not ultrasounds are always medically necessary. However, I will ask why the law is necessary if such ultrasounds are routinely done? Wouldn’t it suffice if doctors were required to present women with printed (and signed) material informing them of the need for the ultrasound and their right to see/discuss it (in much the same manner as doctor’s offices are required to distribute privacy notices to all patients)? Guess I’m still trying to see a motivation other than coercion here…

 

[jilly4ski]

I have had major surgery more than once, and so have multiple family members - I don’t remember anyone showing a CTscan and saying, “here is you infected appendix”. Many doctors do show images after a procedure, if pictures were taken. So, unless I have never given proper consent, it doesn’t seem to me that images are necessary for someone to understand the essentials of the procedure they are about to undergo. I’m not saying that a woman may not be dissuaded from abortion by an ultrasound or that this not a desirable outcome, but simply that it is a stretch to make this a matter of informed consent. We also have to consider the unintended consequences of legislation of this nature beyond the narrow boundaries of abortion.

As for what is malpractice and what is not…I’d be quite happy to leave those discussions to people qualified to have them. Since I am not a provider of abortions and not familiar with the standard of care for them, I will offer no opinion of whether of not ultrasounds are always medically necessary. However, I will ask why the law is necessary if such ultrasounds are routinely done? Wouldn’t it suffice if doctors were required to present women with printed (and signed) material informing them of the need for the ultrasound and their right to see/discuss it (in much the same manner as doctor’s offices are required to distribute privacy notices to all patients)? Guess I’m still trying to see a motivation other than coercion here…

I think some of the motivation is that it has been shown that the abortion providers refuse to show women the ultrasound at all, even if requested.They also want to prevent the doctor from committing malpractice. Which is a worthy goal, as malpractice harms patients. Some of the news articles talk about a doctor who didn’t use an ultrasound to date pregnancies and was disciplined twice for using a mistaken procedure and putting patients lives in danger.