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

I think there are some women who years down the line may regret their decision and turn round and blame the clinic and say that things weren't explained fully and then sue the arse of the clinic. A very small minority but I can see it happening.

I think that there is some research that found that nearly 40% of women having a termination thought that women should be offered the chance to see scan images.

I believe this bill talks about offering the option to women, not making them see the images or listen to the heartbeat. Women can decline.

I believe that ensuring that a scan is carried out to confirm gestation will mean that women get the method of termination which is safest for them

First up on google came a top 10 of worst states for womens rights, this is what it has to say about virginia

1. Virginia. Gov. Bob McDonnell and the anti-choice coalition in the state legislature have a two-pronged strategy for the women of their state: attack both their ability to pay for abortion and their ability to find a safe, legal provider in the first place. McDonnell amended a bill establishing Virginia?s health insurance exchange that banned women using the exchange from having insurance coverage for their abortions. Most of these women would struggle to pay for abortion out of pocket, since the exchanges are set up to handle people who aren?t covered by their employers, usually because they?re part-time, underpaid workers or unemployed.

But even if you can get the money together, Virginia wants to make it hard for you to find a doctor. McDonnell also signed into law a bill requiring that abortion clinics meet hospital regulations in order to stay open, which is similar to requiring your dentist to work out of a hospital if he wants to drill your cavities. The move has nothing to do with safety, but will likely end up causing 17 clinics to shut their doors, leaving only four abortion providers in the entire state of nearly 8 million people.

x posting here

Looking at this in isolation? I think I look factually and don't look for something that isn't there. If I thought this was 'the thin edge of the wedge' yes I'd be arguing against it.

Yes I see patterns and traits.

Do I think rejecting gold standard healthcare or choice is a good idea because of the risk of a future 'situation' ? No.

So some of you think that women who seek abortions, do not know what an abortion is?

And need to be shown ultrasound pictures, and listen to a heartbeat, in order to understand that what an abortion is, is getting rid of a pregnancy?

I am sure I must have misunderstood you.

I agree about costs.

Sardine - I can see where you are coming from however I have seen evidence of private care (across all healthcare not just abortion) being driven by business. Unnecessary procedures performed because it's business.

Scans would show medical problems and early miscarriage meaning that an abortion would not be required for those women and they get the healthcare they need.

I'm interested in why the OP chose such a sensationalist headline for this thread? One which seems to bear no relation to what the bill is actually saying.

toothbrush do you always look at everything in isolation? Never see any patterns, never see that certain traits in societies lead to certain other things?

Knowing that abortion is a right which is constantly on the verge of being removed in the states, and all the other things going on over there, is it really suitable to look at this one thing in isolation?

It isn't the UK and it isn't the NHS.
A woman who had been raped would not be forced to have a trans-vaginal scan in the UK. I imagine if a woman in teh UK flat out refused a scan for some reason then they would find a way to accoodate her. If not, maybe we need to look at that too. I simply do not understand why people are so keen to remove all of the background cultural facts of this topic and find excuses for it. Why? It seems like a strange thing to do.

"The document itself says that the scans are to be done in order to obtain "informed consent to abortion".

Nothing to do with dodgy clinics or protecting HCPs."

Sorry, but I disagree. Making sure that clinics get informed consent is about making sure that there aren't dodgy clinics doing terminations without informed consent. Which protects women.

Informed consent is beneficial though???? It does not imply any morality about the 'informed' bit. Same as obtaining informed consent for an gallbladder op - you have a scan to know what you're dealing with - you're informed. Images are stored. Similar experience.

Ovarian cyst ? tumour - gold standard is TV scan and images stored for 7 yrs...blah blah blah

I do agree that women having to pay extra for scans is horrific. Having to pay for a termination is terrible. It should never be an option that people can't afford.

I recently read a very sad story about an American woman who found out she was pregnant and wanted a termination. Couldn't get to the nearest abortion clinic which was 100miles away. She managed to get hold of some mifepristone via the Internet. But she was further on than what she thought, it induced a miscarriage but made her poorly. She went to a neighbour for help and the neighbour called the police. I believe the woman is now facing charges though they're trying to determine if the fetus is more or less than 23 weeks before they decide about prosecuting. Terrible.

From the same link: Informed written consent means the knowing and voluntary written consent to abortion by a pregnant woman of any age, without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other form of constraint or coercion by the physician who is to perform the abortion or his agent.

I can see that a lot of people think medical staff wish to prevent abortion or stop it being a choice without guilt.

I read that as they think women are having abortions they don't want due to adverts / encouragement from medical facilities. If that is the case I don't see how making them perform ultrasounds (even more money) will help.

emphasis on external member and internal organs to establish a pregnancy is intrauterine...you have to show the uterus.

To demonstrate that you checked ovaries for a co-existing ectopic (rare) you'd show them. It's a quick addition to the scan and would not extend the time involved.

If a sonographer did not do this they would be considered negligent in a court. Until we have a court ruling saying that they won't be sued if they don't do this, it would be part of any local guideline.

What exactly do you think they are gaining from a scan of internal organs? It's a grey image and to many could be another body area. It's not sexual and it's no more invasive than the original scan.

There's gonna be a lot more shoddy clinics about when the nutjobs have finished. Laws like this won't help women who have to use them because there are few or no alternatives (I particularly like the bit about resources for getting the father to pay for raising any potential child).

The document itself says that the scans are to be done in order to obtain "informed consent to abortion".

Nothing to do with dodgy clinics or protecting HCPs.

From the same link: Informed written consent means the knowing and voluntary written consent to abortion by a pregnant woman of any age, without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other form of constraint or coercion by the physician who is to perform the abortion or his agent.

I can see that a lot of people think medical staff wish to prevent abortion or stop it being a choice without guilt.

My own concern was that a private company was happy to go through the procedure regardless of whether it was safe or the right thing because it was 'business' for them.

sardine-I'm not defending. I'm trying to be factual and refer to the evidence given. I'm not referring to all the other scenarios that you describe because they are not in that link.

It's 6 years for standard medical records

I think there's an element of over-estimating a big kerfuffle about supposed regular performance of late-term abortions (in Delaware?) and this is the result. As well as the general war on choice thing.

There's something else that's itching my brain about this but I don't know what it is yet. Will read those great links upthread again and see if it triggers anything.

What toothbrushthief said.

Making sure that the ultrasound images show details of internal organs, any measurements, etc is about ensuring that the gestation age that the doctor says it is is correct. For the woman's protection, storing the images will mean that an audit can be done to ensure clinics are complying. Otherwise rogue clinics may try to cut corners/save money by maybe giving Mifepristone after 9 weeks rather than doing a surgical termination.

That's how I read it anyway.

WHY are people defending this?

Around the states

There are constant assaults on the rights of american women to abortion
There is currently a big hoo-ha because of the thing to do with people being offered medical insurance under work polices and some organisations are saying contraception must be excluded
It has been proposed in one state that women who have been raped be reported as rape accusers rather than rape victims
This personhood of an embryo thing meaning abortion will be illegal along with many forms of contraception

I am sure there are more but I am not an expert in this it's just what I've seen in the papers.

This law has nothing to do with protecting women and everything to do with a right-wing anti-abortion standpoint.

We even have people making up alternative reasons the legislation might be coming in - to protect women from shoddy medical treatment? Where did that even come from?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a bleeding duck. Or whatever the expression is. This legislation has nothing to do with protecting women at all and everything to do with paving the way for further legislation against womens reproductive choice.

What about the fact that women who want an abortion will have to pay for the scan out of their own pocket to the tune of several hundred dollars? The legislature maybe hoping that in itself will be enough to price it out of being an option for some women.

Don't get this thread.

My reading of that bill is that the ultrasound has to be retained in exactly the same way as all medical records/X-rays etc for 7 yrs. It is a medical examination and the result is a medical fact. I do appreciate that it is an emotive situation. This is standard practice for other medical imaging however - it's not picking on abortions as a special case.

The qualified medical professional performing fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B shall offer the woman an opportunity to view and receive a printed copy of the ultrasound image and hear auscultation of fetal heart tone and shall obtain from the woman written certification that this opportunity was offered and whether or not it was accepted and, if applicable, verification that the pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from the facility where the abortion is to be performed. Again experience tells me that this is about protecting the practitioner from a complaint that the procedure was not performed appropriately or with full knowledge or consent. However I do think it is extremely badly worded/drafted and the intention is not clear. I'm not at all surprised that the consequence has been that the intention is viewed with huge suspicion. Very poor

It's ironic that we had to have a written policy on showing women their scans. The reason was not because we a) wanted to or b) didn't want to. It was because women asked ...and then regretted ...and then blamed the staff for complying....... or women asked ... and staff suggested it wasn't a good idea but the women disliked being treated like children and complained at that attitude.

My view was to do what I was asked but record exactly that.

The above is exactly the sort of scenario that meant we had a written protocol on dealing with requests for viewing or keeping images from the women. The policy was meant to protect patients and staff