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

toothbrush why are you trying so hard to give teh benefit of the doubt to a legislature that is so patently anti-choice?

Your phrase about "godl standard" was used by someone supporting the bill in the OPs link - saying it was all about looking after women and nothing to do with any political / religious / etc motivations.

the quote was from someone with the "united for life" alliance.

Aye - a whole new thread is merited !! but trans-vaginal ultrasound for no medical reason was the lead on this thread.

Yes abortion will become illegal as well as many types of contraception ie coil, pill etc

Ayerobot, I take it that if that bill is passed that abortion will become illegal in Virginia? Seeing as a fetus at any gestation will have rights?

That's the sort of bill which needs to be fought against. Though if I'm understanding the yes/no votes it looks like the majority are in favour of passing it. Terrible.

The fact that this is being introduced by lawmakers, and out of the hands of medics, is a problem. I agree
The fact that there is therefore no leeway for the medic, in certain situations, as they have to abide by this by law. I agree
The fact that it is described in the opening as to do with informed consent, when ultrasounds are for diagnostic purposes, is a dead giveaway. I strongly disagree. Informed consent cannot be informed if you don't know information (miscarried/dates/ectopic/bicornuate uterus/etc)

it does make a difference however when it turns out that this legislation will effectively shut down a large proportion of already limited facilities in the state. this is again the problem with privatisation and religious politics governing the availability and funding of services. Tricky one this. The NHS used to say 'no money' and therefore shoddy care was allowed. Once policies are published that NHS trust would be ruined in court for failing to follow the policy. Policy has driven best practice. The tricky bit is the private care. Private care will assess business opportunities. If the criteria are raised then it may shrink provision which is not acceptable.

Aye's link:

"HB 1 Unborn children; construing the word "person" under Virginia law to include.
Introduced by: Robert G. Marshall | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles

SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:
Rights of unborn children. Provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth, subject only to the laws and constitutions of Virginia and the United States, precedents of the United States Supreme Court, and provisions to the contrary in the statutes of the Commonwealth."

Viva contraception isn't even free in the US.

But what if the lawmakers are being informed by medical research and best practice?

Doctors in the uk would say it's best practice to have a scan before a termination.

If only you were here earlier aye

yes, that.

You can't look at this piece in isolation, from the other pieces of legislation being enforced / suggested in virginia and what is happening across the states as a whole.

The Bill in the OP won't matter if this one is passed

Women's best interests or wider anti abortion drive?

It really depends how it's enacted. On the face of it I do think scans are very much in a woman's best interests. I think the number of women needing a vaginal scan will be a very small proportion.

I can see the reason behind offering women the choice of seeing the images. However if someone was there pressurising a woman into looking at the images then that would be awful. I do agree though that staff in termination clinics are pro choice. I can't really imagine that many pro lifers work there. I'd like to think they treated women with respect and empathy.

I do think that abortion faces some very tough challenges in America though I'd hope under Obama any threats to services are less than under bush. I'm sure there are areas still that need challenging in order to improve access, etc. I think energy would be better focusing on those areas. Like making terminations free, improving access to clinics so people aren't having to travel 100+ miles to find a clinic.

it does make a difference however when it turns out that this legislation will effectively shut down a large proportion of already limited facilities in the state. this is again the problem with privatisation and religious politics governing the availability and funding of services.

"Then they either consent to the vaginal scan or they don't. If they don't consent to it then they come back the following week and try again for an abdominal scan? I don't know, that's me guessing. Do you know the answer? If not, find out if you want to know.

I don't think they're going to pin her down and force her to have it done."

It's have it done or no abortion.
My second pregnancy was such that the placenta was in the way and I had to have trans-vaginal scans, they couldn't see anything otherwise.

This is not a good position to put women in.

If a medical professional says a scan is a must, then that is one thing.
If the lawmakers say a scan is a must, for all patients, no ifs no buts, then that is something quite different.

The fact that this is being introduced by lawmakers, and out of the hands of medics, is a problem.
The fact that there is therefore no leeway for the medic, in certain situations, as they have to abide by this by law.
The fact that it is described in the opening as to do with informed consent, when ultrasounds are for diagnostic purposes, is a dead giveaway.

As far as I know there is not a problem in virginia with shoddy abortion clinics or women being persuaded into having abortions they don't want. If there were then the people making this legislation would be quoting stats. They aren't.

The whole thing is simply another nail in the coffin for womens rights in certain parts of the US.

Legislature has no place specifying what diagnostic procedures should be used. Do they have chapter and verse in their statute books about what investigations must be made by law if someone presents with suspected gout? A broken leg? Doubt it.

Whole thing stinks.

I can't type fast enough... thread is moving too fast for me

sardine I do not wish to inform women what an abortion is or force women to look at images. With any healthcare provision an adult must be given risks and options. I've just started HRT. I was given a fact sheet with a huge amount of info on and told to go away and read it before I could start it.

It's not about preventing my access to it. It was all about giving me the risks to the rest of my health (not that negligible) and getting me to make a choice and giving me time to do so.

I still would not wish to reject good healthcare because of my fear of how this policy was being used strategically.

Pick battles. Keep good healthcare but argue for free provision/better access. Accepting poor care is not the answer.

My whole point of posting was to inject some information to counter the assumption that the whole point of a TV scan was to suppress women at the point of asking for an abortion.

My main wish is that abortions are safe and provided sensitively with women able to make decisions that are right for them I have met many a woman who bitterly regretted their abortion and felt pressured by parent/partner or society. That is as tragic as a woman being humiliated or hurt whilst requesting/receiving one.

I think the transvaginal scans are a red herring on this thread and it's a shame the OP chose to focus on them in the title - Toothbrush is making excellent well-informed posts on how they are medically necessary and appropriate and SQ is focused on the woman being made to view the images, which is the real feminist issue.

Arguing at cross-purposes, peeps!

Then they either consent to the vaginal scan or they don't. If they don't consent to it then they come back the following week and try again for an abdominal scan? I don't know, that's me guessing. Do you know the answer? If not, find out if you want to know.

I don't think they're going to pin her down and force her to have it done.

For one thing diagnosis and consent are interlinked. A woman may be happy to have a termination at 8 weeks if it involves swallowing a tablet. But at 13 weeks she may feel that the gestation is too advanced for her to have a termination, or may not want a surgical procedure.

Where does it say that this bill is to try and emotionally blackmail women into not having a termination?

YES and if someone is a rape victim and the scan needs to be trans-vaginal. What then?

i'm wondering whether this is conflating other stuff that is going on there with this and jumping to a huge conclusion (a very understandable one). the only out and out dodgy seeming bit is the offering to see the scan and hear the heartbeat. i'm really not clear on what on earth they could claim that was about other than anti choice political pressure - i don't buy the it would stop clinics getting sued for not offering/offering etc because this is politicians writing this not private health practitioners trying to avoid legislation.

i actually do believe that a rape victim could be refused an abortion effectively if she wasn't prepared to have a scan that the doctor considered necessary now i think about it. i've been refused a female consultant even when saying that i would not have potentially life saving treatment if a man had to do it - it was made very clear that that was up to me but they wouldn't budge no matter what my reasons. i was a year late having treatment due to this as they just signed me off and didn't even inform my gp - it was me who eventually discussed it with her and my reasons and she wrote and asked for special consideration and they still refused to let me see a female consultant.

i've also had the obnoxious twat who insisted on a vaginal scan without even trying an abdominal one before the d&c i talked about earlier. i really wasn't left with any choice other than to get up and walk out of hospital still carrying a failed pregnancy that my body had not shown any signs of naturally dealing with.

in the context of what is going on in the us it's obviously going to read like more of the same but i can understand that actually a lot of this 'could' be justified. the offer to listen to the heartbeat is just blatant though imo. but then again maybe they're seeing it as not a foregone conclusion that the woman will have a termination but a consultation that should be a part of the decision making process guided of course by their ideals that a woman should change her mind. i have to say i find this one a whole lot less worrying than most of what i have read lately whereby women are in prison for miscarriages and abortion is effectively being outlawed if not contraception too.

A transvaginal scan will not be performed for the sake of it. It will be done if an abdominal scan is not possible.

There seems to be an implication on this thread that women will be subjected to transvaginal scans as a method of punishment or to discourage them from seeking abortion. Abortion services are generally not staffed by people with an ethical objection to abortion.

There is possibly a serious point to this thread, and scanning for non-clincial grounds does seem dubious, but given the level of sensationalism and mis-information on this thread you would be hard-pressed to find it.

But mitchinge, it's not a vaginal ultrasound, its an abdominal one that will be routinely offered. So why not title the thread "abdominal ultrasound for no medical reason" if you believe there is no medical reason for it.

I do however see a medical reason.

I don;t know what to say. I really don;y.

The back-story of attacking womens reproductive rights in parts of teh US is well known.
Yet apparently that is all irrelevant here. What matters is enforcing this, on the basis that it is protecting women from sharp practice although it doesn't say that in any of the linked articles - saying it is gold standard that women must be forced to undergo ultrasounds - even raped children - and even transvaginally - as this is gold standard.

If you deal in facts then where does it say that the reason for this is to protect women? That idea has come out of thin air and is now being touted as the definite reason.

When in fact having an ultrasound - if to do with anything is to do with diagnosis and not consent. Scans are not for the patient they are for the HCP to determine the appropriate treatment.

Some absolute logical failing on here and a desperation to apply worthy kindly motives to something that obviosuly is not coming from that place.

WHY? i don't get it.

And how any HCP can say that a scan is a consent factor as opposed to a diagnostic factor is beyond me.