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

I'd like to point out that in the UK at least, scans aren't done in a special 'abortion-only' room (unless, of course, you are at a private abortion clinic). All the women are in together. I was next to a woman who had lost her much-wanted child, late in a pregnancy, and was waiting for a scan to confirm the details. I've never felt shitter in my life.

You also have no way of knowing the views of the staff dealing with you in this context. I had one nurse put her hand on my knee and tell me that I 'should have children as early as possible'. This was in reply to me saying that I wanted a termination.

Viva, your first reply to me agreed that scans were (and are) not always offered in an unproblematic way. I was certainly not given the option of 'coming back a week later' - in any case, I was terrified, sick, unwell and in the midst of a load of deadlines. I wanted an abortion and I wanted it instantly. Under those conditions, 'consent' is a bit of a grey area. I don't understand why you're so affronted that other posters find the idea of scans repugnant.

But a doctor would refuse treatment for a broken leg without an xray.

Doees Virginia (or anywhere else) legislate for mandatory x rays in the case of broken bones? if not, whyever not?

that's true - you can give birth without ever having had a scan despite the fact that that could present far greater dangers potentially than having an early termination without a scan.

is it the law that pregnant women have scans in this state? i'm guessing not.

Hello doctor I think I've broken my leg.

Ok, we'll xray it to see where the break is.

Oh no, I don't believe in xrays, I'm not going to have one. Just put a cast on my leg.

Well if we do that we may put the cast in the wrong place, or even put a cast on where there's not even a break. If there is a break it may need surgery rather than a cast but we can't tell without an xray. There's a chance you could never walk again, need your leg amputating or develop a potentially fatal clot if you don't have an xray.

No still don't want one.

Ok, I'll get the nurse to come and put the cast on now.

Hurray for sanity!

It should be easy enough to see whether evidence speaks for use of scans, or is indifferent.

What adverse outcomes in what number have been associated with abortions without using imaging technology to confirm gestational age? How great is the reduction of these adverse outcomes, since routine imaging has been introduced?

And even if there's a solid evidence base favouring u/s, firstly, shouldn't a woman be able to still refuse it, as an [i]informed[/i] decision, i.e. be presented all the risks and benefits and then decide how to proceed?

Also, if there was a genuine reason, that this was medical best practice, would there be a need to enshrine it into a law, at the decision making stage?

Routine u/s is best practice in continuing pregnancies, but there is no law which obliges a woman to agree to it.

I do have an agenda - i want abortion to be treated as an elective medical procedure that a woman is competent to request, which is then granted without any medically unnecessary garnishes - extra scans, listening to heartbeats etc.

i want them safe and abundantly available, to whoever wants them.

Your insistance that tv scans will be used in every case makes me wonder whether you have an agenda.

This thread has been completely derailed by misleading claims about tv scans being forced upon everyone who needs an abortion.

As I said before, there could be a serious point here, about whether aspects of this bill are aimed at discouraging access to termination, but you would be hard pressed to find it.

Your cute insistence that this is being done in good faith for the benefit of women makes me wonder if you have an agenda

Who is saying that tv scans will be used in every case? Why would they be?

tv scans are not medically indicated in every case and need to be left to the discretion of the medical personnel, and subject to informed consent as are all other medical procedures

not

legislatively mandated in a bid to ensure that women's access to safe, legal abortions when they want and need them is compromised and eroded

Would you want to have cardiac surgery without a scan beforehand? No?

Begs the question as well, if scans are so critical, how did legal, safe cardiac surgery ever occur before they were developed?

Why should women undergoing terminations not have access to high standards of assessment pre-procedure?

Begs the question as well, if tv scans are so critical, how did legal, safe abortions ever occur before they were developed? to hear some posters, that would be impossible

Who are these 'people' who might be having abortions? Back home, it is singularly women and girls who have them.

in any case, as roe vs wade enshrines the right to choose, states circumvent this by making that choice impracticable - unavailability of clinics, stupid wait times, having to recieve counselling, listen to heartbeats etc.

absolutlely none of this is being done for any other purpose than to prevent abortions from taking place, it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise

That applies equally to people planning on proceeding with the pregnancy and people planning not to.

People not planning on aborting won't be legally forced to have a scan! It's not standard to offer eg 7 week scans.

It is true that early in pregnancy a trans vaginal scan is more likely to be needed. That applies equally to people planning on proceeding with the pregnancy and people planning not to.

I dont see any reason to think that medical staff would use transvaginal scanning as a punitive measure. Even if it was accepted that that was the intention of the legislation (and I'm not convinced by that), I dont think that it would be utilised in that way. Abortion services tend not to be staffed by people who have a major ethical objection to abortion.

There are other aspects of this bill that concern me more. The requirement to offer an opportunity to hear the fetal heart seems to me to be more overtly aimed at getting women to change their mind, though I'm aware that they are able to decline this.

And of course, while we're tussling over this, we're inching further and further away from the bedrock of women's rights: that we have sovereign authority over our bodies, and what is in them.

That seems to have been completely forgotten in the mire of whether or not scans, or waiting lists, or time limits are 'good' for women or 'good' for foetuses.

Which, of course, is exactly the anti-choice agenda.

Well, I've read it again, catsareevil, and though vaginal scans won't be in addition to abdominal, it certainly sounds as though vaginal ones will be required in many cases. The original link states that

a) ultrasounds are required under this bill
b) women tend to abort as early as possible
c) early abortions increase the likelihood of a vaginal scan

Interestingly, physicians themselves (quoted in that article) don't seem to think that any kind of scan is automatically necessary, and they prefer to use their discretion.

I am struggling to see this as anything other than another measure - like the 'cooling off period', like the 'informative' video - designed to make seeking abortion as difficult and traumatic as possible.

No, that is not the case.

Am I understanding this correctly, in that all women seeking abortion will have a vaginal scan? Even those for whom the abdominal one works just fine?

How can anyone see that as anything other than intrusive and designed to punish women? Have you seen the device that they use to perform vaginal scans? It is tremendously intimidating.

The West Wing: The 76 year old grandmother.

ED
The 76 year old grandmother.

LARRY
Every time we use those assault stats, Carr and Gilmore come back...

SAM
Who's the 76 year old--

LARRY
Every day, 17,000 Americans defend themselves with a gun--

SAM
That's flat-out not true.

ED
--including a 76 year old grandmother in Chicago, who defended herself
against an
intruder in the middle of the night.

LARRY
Just don't use the stats.

SAM
The 76 year old grandmother doesn't defend herself with a modified AK-47
Assault
Rifle, Larry. Unless she's defending herself against Turkish rebels.

They don't like fireworks in Virginia, though.

Who on earth needs more than one handgun per month?