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

My earliest scan was at 7 weeks, and was abdominal and demonstrated the fetal heart.

Iirc, most abortions are undertaken at less than 9 weeks gestation. How likely is it that an abdominal scan will detect the heartbeat at that stage? Genuine question.

"i do think legislatively spelling out the need for the scans to be tv is a particular coup de grace which has nowt to do with medical need, this could be left to the discretion of medical personnel"

It doesnt. You have been repeatedly told that it doesnt. Why do you persist in saying that it does?

If the purpose of the bill were for the betterment of women's reproductive health, it would say so.

Actually, they aren't being made to, I don't think. At least not in this Bill. That's a Texas thing.

I'm not really not that exercised about scans that are medically advised. As you say, it's the attitude of punishment and a woman not knowing her own mind and body that is disgusting. As if women don't know what an abortion is. It would have been possible to see this Bill in isolation and not think there was anything more in it. But in conjunction with the personhood one, the motives of the legislators are much clearer.

The article that blackcurrants posted is a good one, if anyone missed it.

i do think legislatively spelling out the need for the scans to be tv is a particular coup de grace which has nowt to do with medical need, this could be left to the discretion of medical personnel

i agree that the main issue is all the extras - listening to the heartbeat, having to see the scans etc. which is done for no other reason than to restrict choice

Yes thats what it is because everyone can know what is going on inside their bodies at all times with no need for scanning.

No-one ever has a missed miscarriage and thinks that they are still pregnant, no-one ever has an ectopic. Thats right.

Aye - the scans themselves would in all likelihood be happening anyway prior to the abortion, as they do in the UK. The issue is with women being made to look at the scan images.

Chibi - tv scans will be used instead of abdominal scans when medically necessary. It's the scan itself which is of concern, not the fact it might end up being a tv one, surely? Surely women beingmade to view the fetus is the massive issue with this legislation and not the means?

There's a heavy element of "I don't believe her" in there too.

This Bill is supposedly to establish gestational age. It will have other positive and negative effects. I am concerned about the negative effects. State mandated negative effects. It may not directly affect me, however it is a useful exercise because you can bet that the likes of Dorries are watching this and honing their arguments.

Why would a virgin/celibate woman who has been raped and knows exactly when that was need a scan to establish gestational age? Why would a woman who has had sex once in the past 9 months need to establish gestational age?

I like to keep asking why when things don't make much sense to me.

so this legislation is in direct response to women refusing best practice and doctors taking shortcuts? Do you have any kind of link for that?

I'm not squirming. I just cant see why this thread is being persistently driven off a sensible course by nonsense about forcing everyone to have a tv scan. The point is being missed.

Viva the legislation is clearly for thepurpose of making women look at the scan and not about medical safety, though.

They don't need to pass any legislation about xrays as people accept that you need an xray in order to get safe treatment. Plus theres no danger of a doctor trying to take shortcuts by treating a broken leg without an xray.

It's not the ultrasound procedure in and of itself which is intrusive - it's the making you see and hear the fetus!

The point is women being forced - well, encouraged - to look at the image, and to hear the fetal heartbeat

Ultrasound scans will be done in most cases for medical abortions here too - just without this caveat.

Argh

well then surely the analogy would be if you gave birth at home no problem but if you turn up at hospital expecting hcps to deal with it....

you're squirming on this one and i don't know why. it was a perfectly valid point that was raised.

and i'd seriously question that birth requires no intervention.

i look forward to reading the terms of the xray and cast legislation

do keep us posted on when it is passed

I'm not changing the bar. A woman could go her pregnancy with no testing or intervention at all and give birth at the end, because birth is usually what happens at the end of pregnancy, with no intervention required.

In the event of an abortion (or induction, or CS) you are asking a doctor to actively perform a procedure, so a different standard applies, as there will then be a need to be sure that the correct procedure is being done as safely as possible.

Like in Vivas example, you can think that you have broken your leg, and if you go home and get on with things no-one will make you have an x-ray, but if you turn up at the hospital requesting a cast then that wont be done without an x-ray.

Argh this thread is so full of straw men!

The issue is one of women being forced to have a medically unnecessary scans. TV scans will will be used if judged by medical professionals that it is necessary . We should of course be up in arms that scans are being forced on women when medically unnecessary, but the tv bit is a massive red herring. I'm due to have one next week to decide whether my uterus needs an operation - if I'd never had one, this thread would make me terrified!

Tv scans are not sexual, and are no more intrusive than many, many other medical procedures. Yes it involves the vagina, it's not fun, but neither are smears or d+cs or abortions, or birth for that matter!

The intrusive bit in this legislation is forcing women to hear the fetal heartbeat and see it. This will undoubtedly cause trauma - tv scans are just a means to this unpleasant end in this case.

I'm not a fan of anti-choice legislation, which is what this is, but SQ you're focusing on the wrong part of it.

I wonder if men feel sad that lawmakers aren't as concerned about their health - not enough to pass laws about it anyway

where are the concerned lawmakers who will ensure that men are made to go through a brace of cardiac exams, explain why they require it to multiple doctors, be forced to listen to regretful testimony and have a cooling off period before they can get access to viagra?

why change the bar cats? it stands well enough as a direct analogy without raising it. if it's all about concern for women's health then surely scans would be obligatory for all?

Gosh they really ought to pass a law about that

I look forward to the ream of legislation drafted to manage all aspects of ledical interventions that don't just involve women's reproductive health

it will be along aaaaaaaaany time i reckon

swallowedafly

Would an induction or CSection be done at the request of the mother, with no previous scanning during the pregnancy?