trans-vaginal ultrasound for no medical reason - Virginia, anti-choice

Ah yes, the Virginia legislature. So concerned for the sanctity of human life. Am not quite sure how they square that with the fact that Virginia has the death penalty and apparently is so enthusiastic about it that only Texas executes more people. They really do like to punish, don't they? What utterly nauseating hypocrites these men are.

I had a scan before termination here in the UK, at the same clinic as the one for women intending to continue with their pregnancies. I don't remember being asked for consent to this; I might have been. The sonographer asked me if I wanted her to turn the screen away - erm, yes please! I think it was much as Viva says - I expect I could have refused the scan, but then they would have refused the abortion. And I did have the dates a bit wrong, whoever suggested that women definitely know them, and the termination was surgical in the end.

A thousand protesters mainly women stood in silent vigil at the state capitol as the legislators (majority men) considered the bill.

That is a very strong image.

Women standing in silent protest whilst men make decisions about an issue that doesn't even affect them - a women's issue.

How wrong it that?

Link:

jezebel.com/5886672/hundreds-of-protesters-form-silent-chain-outside-virginia-capitol

Since when did legislators ever legislate on specific medical procedures? I'd like to see evidence of them interfering in other forms of medical treatment e.g. heart disease, or diabetes.

The reason they are singling out abortion and coming between a woman and her medical practitioner is because of extreme woman-hatred. Nothing else.

A thousand protesters mainly women stood in silent vigil at the state capitol as the legislators (majority men) considered the bill.

all of the information??!? ffs. do you think good old bob knows all the implications of having a child and being a mother? perhaps we could give out stats about the pay gap, the difference in promotion between women with children and those without, the statistical risks of dv for those with and without children, the stats regarding women living without any financial input from the fathers of their children, the number of women who have mild to severe incontinence following childbirth and simple things like the reality of living on a few hours sleep nightly for a year. like, you know, informed consent. bloody good point mrsM.

good point mrsM - there's the risk of pnd, complications in labour, bladder incontinency, weight gain (which we know to be linked to diabetes etc), loss of earnings, 18 years of responsibility, etc etc etc. informed consent would take quite a long time really wouldn't it?

whilst showing them pics of 7wk embryos we should also show them pics of torn perineums, mastitis, varicose veins, piles etc etc.

we wouldn't want to be accused of not informing their consent after all.

"Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, told ABC News he supports ?the concept that a woman should have all of the information possible before she makes a decision about terminating a pregnancy"

Sounds like they should add "and at the first doctor's apointment, the cost of raising a child to 18, and the lack of sleep involved with a newborn" to the bill. Wouldn't do to have a woman go into motherhood without her eyes open

--yes, I know that his statement is a veilled "I want my opionion seen, and not what it says on the tin. but wouldn't be fab if it WAS, and this sort of thing was taken onward in both ways? -

at that AyeRobot.

From that link;

So far, six of the 50 U.S. states have passed laws requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion and provide the woman an opportunity to view the image, according to the Guttmacher Institute in Washington, which studies reproductive health issues.

While most of those states allow women to decline to view the image, Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina require women to hear the provider's verbal description of the ultrasound.

The laws in Oklahoma and North Carolina are temporarily not being enforced, pending court challenges.

Six states require this. Six out of fifty.

Do we seriously think it is because these 6 states are well meaningly concerned with women's health and informed consent - to the point where they think that women need descriptions of the baby they have elected to abort in order for them to understand that they are consenting to an abortion?

Or do we think that they are trying to make it harder for women to access abortions without moralising blackmail/hoops to jump through?

Remembering that we are in a political context which is anti-choice in these states.

Well, Texas is almost there...

Pressuring a woman to hear the heartbeat of a baby she has opted to abort, and enshrining that pressure in law, is NOTHING to do with informed consent or diagnosis/treatment.

It is emotional blackmail and punishment.

They'll be passing a law saying a woman has to look at images of aborted foetuses next .

I agree totally with everything Blackcurrants just said.

This law is being passed by people who are anti-abortion. It is clearly intended to make it even more difficult for a woman to exercise her federal accorded right to abortion, than it already is.

This is an entirely different political kettle of fish to the UK.

No-one on the thread has said TV scans will be compulsory.
No-one has said they will be used instead of abdominal scans, when abdominal scans will do just as well.

I just have a real horror of a girl or woman who has been raped, being told that she cannot have an abortion unless she submits to a TV scan, if she is someone for whom (for whatever reason) an abdominal scan does not give the required information. There are some situations where even if you wait things will not change and you don't want to be waiting too long for an abortion.

I think there are a lot of problems with this bill - the background in this state, the other bills going on show the motivation of this bill. The idea that women will have to pay for these scans. The changes in legislation meaning most clinics offering abortions will have to close. The idea that the next step to this bill will be that women must view the scan / have it described / listen to the heartbeat.

The whole thing is horrendous. And I do have a problem with the prospect of rape victims having to go through all these hoops and, yes, the possibility that they might have to have something inserted into their vagina in order to obtain an abortion.

I think that the focus on TV or not TV does have its place in the case of this particular Bill. I think the detail of all Bills like this are important because just focusing on choice/no choice doesn't work - the no choice people want no choice and no abortion. There is no argument about abortion that will change their mind. Especially not the men. Saying "hang on, do you realise that the effect of this Bill will be X, Y or Z in practice?" has more chance of convincing the floating/apathetic voter/legislator. Of course, it would be lovely if "You do realise that women are human and therefore should have rights over what happens to their body?" would cause a shift in thinking.

I am not saying that TV scans will be done over abdominal. I have been trying to find out in what scenario they will be used in a Bill that is being put forward to legally establish gestational age via scans alone. Or why any scan is being legally mandated to do that, actually. I think I'm right in saying (but not checked) that rape in Virginia includes penetration with an object without consent and I think that's why the TV thing is a particularly big issue in this particular case. If a woman knows the date of conception yet is being legally made to have a TV scan (because at early stages of pregnancy or with a high BMI it easier to hear the heartbeat of the feotus), then that is legally and personally problematic, particularly if thepregnancy is a result of rape. Not to mention the "Do you want to hear the heartbeat (OF THE ICKLE BABY YOU ARE ABOUT TO KILL)?" phraseology.

Agreed SaF, the law is genuinely shocking and awful - I'm just getting vexed by the focus on the use of tv scans; linking them to historic police use of them is unnecessary and no wonder ToothbrushThief felt the need to defend their use in her profession, they are a vital tool in lots of scenarios, here and in the US. The method of scan is such a minor component of a law aimed at making women change their mind - which as someone pointed out upthread, doesn't even work. Women who see the image of the fetus prior to abortion don't change their mind, but it is unnecessarily traumatic for them. Scans prior to abortion happen in the UK - both abdominally and transvaginally - but the woman isn't made or even asked to look.

it is about more than that muslin - it is also apart of upping the game more and more so that more and more clinics (private obviously) give up and close therefore lowering an already abysmal provision.

The law is horrendously anti-choice, and it does indeed represent part of the US's general drift towards an almost total lack of access to abortion.

But it doesn't tell medics to do transvaginal scans over abdominal scans. I wish posters would stop saying it does.

The issue - and the law itself - is about making women look at the scan image and hear the fetal heartbeat, with the aim of their 'seeing the light'. It's not about intentionally invading women by using transvaginal scans over abdominal ones.

Whilst I agree that sometimes tv scans are medically indicated (I had to have one to rule out an ectopic as my HCG levels weren't rising enough), it's seem utterly inappropriate and immoral to me for the legislature to be dictating medical practice, rather than leaving it to the medics' professional judgment.

I am reading this thread with my jaw on the floor.

If I am being charitable, I will say: okay, if you don't live in the rabid anti-abortion stew that is the USA, you might think that this is about good practice. If I am being VERY charitable.

But if you do, you see it for what it is - an attempt to prevent women who want a legal medical procedure from getting one.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/ This site is useful for those who want to find out what it's like on the frontlines of defending women's health. this article might clear up some of the stuff about when TV scans are mandated, when women have to look at the embryo etc.

The thing is, they're not shy about it over here. Anti-abortion politicians are bringing bills to reduce access to abortion because they think abortion is wrong. They say things like "Abortion should be illegal" and everyone claps and cheers. They're on record about why they're doing this. They're chipping away at abortion access, state-by-state, because they can't change the federal law (Roe v. Wade) which made abortion legal without appealing to the supreme court, where they are not certain they will win.

So instead they make it harder for women to get abortions. Case in point: my friend is in her final year of Pharmacy training. She's an intelligent person who lives in a university town in Mississippi. Say, something the size of Derby, maybe. Not an isolated village. Because of the threat of violence against abortion providers, plus straight-jacketing laws by the local council (who are all anti-abortion, it seems) there are no doctors at all in her town who will do an abortion. I posted about this on FB one time and she responded with "I worked out once that if I wanted an abortion I would have to drive over 400 miles, take FOUR days off work (because the place she would drive to has a '24 hour cooling off period', the law which insists women come in from the scan 'and counselling' and then spend 24 hours thinking about it. The clinic itself is of course pro-choice but legally mandated to do this to women) and spend more than $500 on the procedure. Jeez, I can't afford 4 days off work at the BEST of times, to lose 4 days' income AND find $500 upfront is unbelievable!"

Laws like this are about reducing access to abortion. How is this hard to understand?

was too early to date though - they could only give a guess-timate and i had to come back a few weeks later for a dating scan.

2 of 2 - had a scan at 7 weeks due to spotting - heartbeat was detectable.

Absolutely

OK, 1 of 1. Think we might need a bigger sample size

Interesting site for sexual and reproductive health research for those interested in the broader picture.