Is it okay to force a woman to have an ultrasound

[Pamm]

This move to force women – or anyone for that matter – to have any kind of medical procedure, invasive or not, is absolutely unconstitutional and violates everything the Catholic Church teaches about the sanctity and respect for a person’s body and life. It is not appropriate to commit one wrong to somehow address some other wrong. Whether or not a person believes that abortion is acceptable in some situations, this extreme infringement on a person’s body is totally unacceptable in all occasions.

 

[Corki]

This move to force women – or anyone for that matter – to have any kind of medical procedure, invasive or not, is absolutely unconstitutional and violates everything the Catholic Church teaches about the sanctity and respect for a person’s body and life. It is not appropriate to commit one wrong to somehow address some other wrong. Whether or not a person believes that abortion is acceptable in some situations, this extreme infringement on a person’s body is totally unacceptable in all occasions.

Whether you agree with it or not, the only way it is unconstitutional is if you believe that abortion is an absolute right above all other rights. No one is forcing her to have the abortion. (well, there probably is but that’s another topic) If abortion is truly a choice, it comes as a package. She is not being “forced” to have the ultrasound anymore than she is “forced” to have a pelvic exam or (hopefully) a blood type test prior to the “procedure”.

If you think that the unconstitutionality comes from the state making the requirement rather than the “doctor”, think again. If that was the case, blood tests prior to marriage would have been found unconstitutional long ago.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The ultrasound is already being done. The only option that has been gained is that the woman gets to see the US and hear the baby’s heartbeat by doppler. So who is forcing any woman to have an ultrasound? This is a specious argument.

Again, the ultrasound is already done before an abortion. So is it wrong to force a woman to have an ultrasound before the abortion, IF she never sees it?

 

[seekerz]

The ultrasound is already being done. The only option that has been gained is that the woman gets to see the US and hear the baby’s heartbeat by doppler. So who is forcing any woman to have an ultrasound? This is a specious argument.

Again, the ultrasound is already done before an abortion. So is it wrong to force a woman to have an ultrasound before the abortion, IF she never sees it?

A woman intelligent enough to consent to an ultrasound, is intelligent enough to ask to see/discuss it if she desires. This sort of legislation sets a bad precedent. A woman seeks medical care, she pays for it, she can make her own decisions.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

A woman intelligent enough to consent to an ultrasound, is intelligent enough to ask to see/discuss it if she desires. This sort of legislation sets a bad precedent. A woman seeks medical care, she pays for it, she can make her own decisions.

But seekerz, abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood WILL NOT SHOW a mother her ultrasound, which is why they are now legally obligated to do it. They will NOT voluntarily show a mother what her baby actually looks like, because they know that once the mom sees her baby, the abortion is not going to happen. And they make money from each abortion. So why would they cut off their income stream voluntarily.

I feel as if we keep going around and around and for nothing. You are purposely being obstinate about this.

 

[vera_dicere]

You are comparing a suspected crime to a doctor’s visit for legal services: apples and oranges.

Mandating medically unnecessary procedures of any kind, by definition, has no basis in science. If there is a scientific basis for administering mandatory, pre-abortion ultrasound, someone would have directed me to the studies by now since I have repeatedly asked to be directed to them.

So ultrasounds are not legally required for abortions.

Explain how the abortionist determines teh gestation.

Explain how the abortionist knows the location of the embryo/foetus.

Explain how the abortionist knows the pregnancy isn’t ectopic, or a hydatiform mole, or twins, or triplets.

Explain how the abortionist knows that there’s no other structural quirk within the woman’s uterus that could cause a problem with the following abortion procedure.

It sounds like you are advocating an abortionist “go in blind”. You really think its a good idea for a suction cannula that is 40 times more powerful than a house hold vacumn cleaner, to go prodding around a uterus - which has the consistancy of a wet paper bag - during pregnancy, to remove a foetus he is unaware of the size of?

That sort of thing will KILL women.

The ultrasound is REQUIRED for a safe abortion. To say otherwise is not just stupid, its dangerous to the health of women.

The law is simply requiring the doctor to offer the woman a chance to see the ultrasound that has already been done.

Vaginal penetration has already taken place as it is part of the process of determining the woman’s health and pregnancy status - so to equate a trans-vaginal probe for an USS with rape, when vaginal penetration has already taken place for other abortion required reasons, is assinine.

You don’t need scientific studies for this, its common sense and can be found in any good gynae surg book.

 

[nordskoven]

The Knights of Columbus are actively emplacing ultrasound equipment in pro-life women’s clinics precisely because when couples–not just women–see their new baby, they are highly likely to reject the abortion option. Is it okay to force a baby to be killed? That’s the question. There is no “choice” without data. An ultrasound is just data, a passive technique that aids informed choice. If a woman doesn’t want to have an ultrasound, she doesn’t have to. And if that means, by law, that she doesn’t get to purchase an abortion, that’s her choice.

 

[seekerz]

But seekerz, abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood WILL NOT SHOW a mother her ultrasound, which is why they are now legally obligated to do it. They will NOT voluntarily show a mother what her baby actually looks like, because they know that once the mom sees her baby, the abortion is not going to happen. And they make money from each abortion. So why would they cut off their income stream voluntarily.

I feel as if we keep going around and around and for nothing. You are purposely being obstinate about this.

What am I being obstinate about? Provide me with one shred of evidence that a woman who asks to see her ultrasound is being refused as a matter of policy and let us rest the case.

She may be discouraged from viewing it, I have no problems believing that; but if it can be shown that these requests are being refused, then a whole lot of people could lose their licenses for unethical conduct.

If we seem to be going round and round it might be because there’s no making a wrong thing right.

 

[seekerz]

So ultrasounds are not legally required for abortions.

Explain how the abortionist determines teh gestation.

Explain how the abortionist knows the location of the embryo/foetus.

Explain how the abortionist knows the pregnancy isn’t ectopic, or a hydatiform mole, or twins, or triplets.

Explain how the abortionist knows that there’s no other structural quirk within the woman’s uterus that could cause a problem with the following abortion procedure.

It sounds like you are advocating an abortionist “go in blind”. You really think its a good idea for a suction cannula that is 40 times more powerful than a house hold vacumn cleaner, to go prodding around a uterus - which has the consistancy of a wet paper bag - during pregnancy, to remove a foetus he is unaware of the size of?

That sort of thing will KILL women.

The ultrasound is REQUIRED for a safe abortion. To say otherwise is not just stupid, its dangerous to the health of women.

The law is simply requiring the doctor to offer the woman a chance to see the ultrasound that has already been done.

Vaginal penetration has already taken place as it is part of the process of determining the woman’s health and pregnancy status - so to equate a trans-vaginal probe for an USS with rape, when vaginal penetration has already taken place for other abortion required reasons, is assinine.

You don’t need scientific studies for this, its common sense and can be found in any good gynae surg book.

Those explanations are for doctors to make. If their policies harm women (and I have yet to see scientific evidence of harm) then that’s what the courts are for.

What any woman chooses or refuses to have penetrate her is up to her and not to anyone else, period. You might think the reasoning asinine if you choose, but the violation of a person’s right to their body (of which abortion also is such a violation) is the violation of a fundamental right which sets a precedent.

 

[jilly4ski]

Those explanations are for doctors to make. If their policies harm women (and I have yet to see scientific evidence of harm) then that’s what the courts are for.

What any woman chooses or refuses to have penetrate her is up to her and not to anyone else, period. You might think the reasoning asinine if you choose, but the violation of a person’s right to their body (of which abortion also is such a violation) is the violation of a fundamental right which sets a precedent.

??? Do you not know that the courts are the law as well? Every time a doctor gets sued for malpractice and losses that sets a precedent and becomes common law. Any doctor who acts in a similar manner is liable under that precedent. Thus a previous patient, doctor, insurance company, jury, judge, and court (and possibly a medical association) has already made a determination about what is required during a specific procedure. What is the difference between a judge or jury making a medical decision and a legislature (which btw at least conducts studies, and consults experts)?

 

[maryjk]

What am I being obstinate about? Provide me with one shred of evidence that a woman who asks to see her ultrasound is being refused as a matter of policy and let us rest the case.

She may be discouraged from viewing it, I have no problems believing that; but if it can be shown that these requests are being refused, then a whole lot of people could lose their licenses for unethical conduct.

If we seem to be going round and round it might be because there’s no making a wrong thing right.

Went for an ultrasound. Asked to see the screen. Was told, sorry, we can’t show it to you.

(And I wasn’t even pregnant. I simply had a fibroid tumor.)

 

[TheRealJuliane]

What am I being obstinate about? Provide me with one shred of evidence that a woman who asks to see her ultrasound is being refused as a matter of policy and let us rest the case.

She may be discouraged from viewing it, I have no problems believing that; but if it can be shown that these requests are being refused, then a whole lot of people could lose their licenses for unethical conduct.

If we seem to be going round and round it might be because there’s no making a wrong thing right.

I don’t expect ethical behavior from people who profit from abortions. Yes, women are told there is nothing to see, and that they cannot see it. Not discouraged, but refused. Why do I have to prove anything to you? From your arguments, you are on the side of the abortion providers. I will not respond again.

 

[seekerz]

??? Do you not know that the courts are the law as well? Every time a doctor gets sued for malpractice and losses that sets a precedent and becomes common law. Any doctor who acts in a similar manner is liable under that precedent. Thus a previous patient, doctor, insurance company, jury, judge, and court (and possibly a medical association) has already made a determination about what is required during a specific procedure. What is the difference between a judge or jury making a medical decision and a legislature (which btw at least conducts studies, and consults experts)?

Judge and jury also hear medical experts. The difference is that cases in the courts reflect real events which occurred. Laws based on ideology with no statistical/medical basis (that I know of) simply reflect politics.

 

[seekerz]

I don’t expect ethical behavior from people who profit from abortions. Yes, women are told there is nothing to see, and that they cannot see it. Not discouraged, but refused. Why do I have to prove anything to you? From your arguments, you are on the side of the abortion providers. I will not respond again.

Thanks for categorizing me. I will not return the favor.

All I have asked for on this thread is evidence of a need for the legislation - what I have gotten is accusations; which to me means no evidence has been made available and people are just proceeding on emotion.

 

[seekerz]

Went for an ultrasound. Asked to see the screen. Was told, sorry, we can’t show it to you.

(And I wasn’t even pregnant. I simply had a fibroid tumor.)

I was referring to pregnancy ultrasounds. Viewing ultrasounds where there might be disease is sometimes refused, depending on the facility’s policy I guess, because techs (rather than docs) do them and they generally do not have authority to discuss your illness with you, particularly if the findings could cause alarm.

Pregnancy ultrasounds are different in that it’s not an examination to find disease.

If people are being denied the opportunity to see those, I would imagine that a law requiring that women be informed of their right to see the ultrasound, would suffice. My impression is that this law goes further, and mandates one be done.

 

[maryjk]

I was referring to pregnancy ultrasounds. Viewing ultrasounds where there might be disease is sometimes refused, depending on the facility’s policy I guess, because techs (rather than docs) do them and they generally do not have authority to discuss your illness with you, particularly if the findings could cause alarm.

Pregnancy ultrasounds are different in that it’s not an examination to find disease.

If people are being denied the opportunity to see those, I would imagine that a law requiring that women be informed of their right to see the ultrasound, would suffice. My impression is that this law goes further, and mandates one be done.

So I should tell you about the ultrasound I had many years ago? They one where I was pregnant but wasn’t allowed to see the screen? I figured you would tell me times have changed.

So US one, performed a couple of weeks ago, not allowed to look at it, not pregnant.

US two, preformed more than 15 years ago, not allowed to look at it, pregnant

But I am sure that these don’t qualify. With one I wasn’t pregnant and one was too long ago. But with neither was I allowed to see the screen. Times haven’t changed.

 

[seekerz]

So I should tell you about the ultrasound I had many years ago? They one where I was pregnant but wasn’t allowed to see the screen? I figured you would tell me times have changed.

So US one, performed a couple of weeks ago, not allowed to look at it, not pregnant.

US two, preformed more than 15 years ago, not allowed to look at it, pregnant

But I am sure that these don’t qualify. With one I wasn’t pregnant and one was too long ago. But with neither was I allowed to see the screen. Times haven’t changed.

I appreciate that this your experience and have no idea how usual that is. I’m very familiar with women health issues and have never heard that complaint, but have heard docs complain that patients come in very concerned about minor abnormalities which should not have been discussed by a tech.

It would be nice to define the magnitude of this problem and lobby for change. As I suggested much earlier on this thread, a simple mandatory notification of their right to see their pregnancy ultrasound, to be signed by each woman who visits a clinic, would suffice to address the issue.