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

Well I'm not a doctor, obviously.

But if a rape victim didn't want a TV scan, they would find another way. In the UK, they would find another way. There must be other means of finding out gestation - hormone levels, other types of scans. they wouldn't say do it or have the baby. They just wouldn't.

Also in some situations they will know when intercourse had taken place, from police or medical records.

"So people on here are pro rape victims having to have transvaginal scans, by law? If they want an abortion."

Talk about hysterically twisting things. Shame I thought we could have had a good discussion on this. I'd heard bad things about the feminist board, can see why now.

"If a heartbeat has to be detected by law and that isn't possible via an abdominal scan, that a TV scan would have to be performed."

If a heartbeat cant be detected on an abdominal scan then its possible that there isn't an on-going pregnancy, or that the pregnancy is not in the uterus but somewhere harder to visualise on an abdominal scan. How can it be justified to have a potentially un-needed medical procedure on that basis.

"In the NHS they would find another way."

What other way would they find?

TT, not necessary.

That is what that Bill means, though, isn't it? If a heartbeat has to be detected by law and that isn't possible via an abdominal scan, that a TV scan would have to be performed. Otherwise, no abortion.

And YOU are missing the point that this will not be a case of HCPs being able to exercise their professional competence and discretion over what diagnostic procedures are necessary and when.

It is a case that all females who want an abortion, for whatever reason, and under whatever circumstances, will have to have a certain diagnostic procedure carried out. This one single diagnostic procedure. There is nothing in there about taking her history, how to proceed if she has had a history of severe pregnancy complications, how to proceed if she is in a state of trauma, nothing else. Just this one thing. How that doesn't ring alarm bells for people, I don't get it.

In the NHS they would find another way. This is law so they cannot find another way.

The desperation to find reasonable motivations behind this legislation is just really baffling me.

WHY are people insisting that this is a kindly act, working out of concern for women, to protect them from evil HCPs who want to exploit them and provide them with inappropriate procedures?

You have missed the point entirely. HCPs are generally, as you can see from this thread, in favour of scanning, in order that the appropriate approach can be offered to the woman.

But don't you see, that if a rape victim asks for an abortion, and is told she must have a trans-vaginal scan in order to have one, means that she says she doesn't want an abortion any more...

Then that is a result for the people bringing in this legislation? They will see that as a life saved, a baby rescued, whatever it is these people say.

I cannot have a discussion with someone who is hysterical and irrational. Good night

So people on here are pro rape victims having to have transvaginal scans, by law? If they want an abortion.

Yes my whole posting on this thread has been about pinning raped women down and drs forcing them to have procedures against their will or knowledge of why..........

FFS

who? i'm not in case you mean me sq - i'm saying that in the context you can see that that is likely a cynical ploy to ensure more clinics close. it's not the same as here whereby if you change legislation the hospital just has to up it's game because of the difference in funding. there it will mean the closure of clinics, here it wouldn't do that.

WHY are people insisting that this is a kindly act, working out of concern for women, to protect them from evil HCPs who want to exploit them and provide them with inappropriate procedures?

Against all the evidence?

aye - in the interim (between banning contraception and the end game of banning abortion) abortion rates would rise. it is utter madness.

So people on here are pro rape victims having to have transvaginal scans, by law? If they want an abortion.

There is no way that the NHS would insist on this, they would find another way.

If you don't want to believe that, or don't think that's how the NHS operates, then it's not the NHS I have had contact with.

Sorry x-posted cos I found that article which has quite a lot of clarity, which stunned me for a sec.

Interesting - "The personhood bill, which passed by 66-32 in the Virginia state House, does not ban abortions, the legality of which are protected under the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. It would, however, make illegal certain types of contraceptive measures, including emergency contraception. Women's health advocates say it could also open the door to banning birth control pills and intrauterine devices (IUD).

Opponents of the personhood bill decry the legislation for curbing women's rights to contraception, and argue that the bill is meant to serve as a "trigger ban," which would make abortion illegal immediately in the event that Roe V. Wade is overturned" From [[
www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57378712-503544/anti-abortion-bills-spark-heated-debate-in-virginia/?tag=contentMain;contentBody this CBS News link]] Roe v Wade is a shaky bit of legislation as far as pro-choice is concerned. (And as an aside, it's where the use of trimesters in pregnancy came into common usage) Oh, and unused fertilised embryos from IVF treatment would have personhood status, no? Atwood is a genius.

As far as TV ultrasounds go - from the same link, it's the heartbeat element of the first Bill that means their use is more likely.

All interesting and scary and there are plenty of people in this country who would like to have a go at our laws, so its useful to learn the ins and outs and tricks of the trade and to get a bit of practice on unpicking this stuff.

exactly what i was trying to say toothbrush - given the private practice context it will result in the shrinking of already small availability. i think the point that is maybe being missed is that given the context of anti abortion there this will likely be exactly why this policy is being introduced - a cynical way of shrinking the availability of abortion for women under the guise of caring about good clinical practice. that's where the context comes in and why you can't look at it in isolation i think.

Yes, of course. But if an abdominal scan is not possible that would be a medical reason to do a transvaginal one wouldnt it?

Why are you trying to make me say that obtaining medical information with a vaginal scan is part of a strategy to prevent access to abortion? Should we start campaigning to prevent this in Europe or wider world?

USA has an issue with abortion.

Providing a diagnostic service using best techniques for a situation (which may mean TV scan) should not be described as 'for no medical reason' and taken as fact for the rest of the world

Abdominal scan isn't always possible.

Who will have transvaginal scans for no medical reason?

Can you say why anyone would have a transvaginal scan if an abdominal one was possible?

Chrissakes viva don't you think people are focussing on it?
Don't you think this trhead is just one of a handful every day highlighting the ongoing assaults against womens reproductive rights in the US?

Some women will have to have trans-vaginal scans for no medical reason.
Some of them will be rape victims.

Just because it;s not going to be that many, in the scheme of things, doesn't make it OK.

Then focus on that because at the minute this thread smacks of not being able to see the wood for the trees. No point moaning about scans which have a good argument for being medically necessary when there's a real risk of terminations being made illegal.