to have been shocked by US anti-abortion feature on Newsnight

[wimblehorse]

This was a few days ago but haven't had chance to post sooner.

The feature was about how far to the right the republican presidential candidates have been pushing on the abortion debate and showed a group in Ohio who are lobbying for abortion law there to be (further) restricted so that once a fetal heartbeat has been detected through compulsory vaginal probe ultra-sound - which can be after 5-6 weeks - then a termination cannot be carried out.

A huge number of women would not even know they were pregnant at 5-6 weeks, and even those who found out straight away it doesn't give much time to be able to arrange a termination, especially as so many clinics/hospitals have been forced to close.

Already in that state, women seeking terminations are forced to have vaginal ultrasound probes and hear/see the heartbeat before having a termination.

The group who were lobbying claimed that detection of the heartbeat was a fundamental sign of life and therefore terminating a pregnancy after this had been detected was "wrong". However it's just a sign of current medical technology. There are many people alive today who have had periods of no detectable heartbeat and have been resuscitated - brain death is what is considered the fundamental sign of life and they had no medical link between detection of ultra-sound heartbeat to development of brain function - awareness/pain etc - in a fetus.

It's an arbitrary measure that is trying to make it almost impossible to seek a safe, legal termination and I really hope that it doesn't make further headway.

Rant over.

WIBU to have been shocked?

Every time I read about this, I keep trying to understand the mindset involved. What is it that those people are actually trying to achieve?

It doesn't make sense to me on any level. The only way I can see it is in terms of religious fundamentalism, which does not bode well for the US because they could well be heading for the kind of split that they went through before.

'"forced to have vaginal ultrasound probes"

No further needed as far as I'm concerned. This, alone is completely shocking.'

That's if you want an abortion. They are not grabbing random pregnant women off the street and forcing probes up their fanjos

Certainly an internal examination is standard with MAP isn't it?

Why on earth would you need one for the MAP? To make you've actually had sex? Mhmm, yes, because many women just like taking it for the hell of it. The pharmacist in Boots is hardly going to ask you to drop your keks in their consulting room, well beyond their remit.

morning after pill? I can assure you it;s not, not here anyway.
And yes, I realise it's only for women who want terminations, and I ahve no problem with it being standard procedure (no idea if it is). But "forced" implies either physical force or coersion, i.e. witholding the abortion without it. Wrong either way IMO.

eg vaginal exams are standard procedure in childbirth. Most women have them. But I'd defend any woman's right to refuse them. i realuse there are situations where one procedure depends on a previous one, not having the first makes the second difficult. But medical staff need to manage that wihout resorting to force or emotional blackmail. They also need to be open to other options, and to allowing women who are aware of the risks, to make the "wrong" decision.

Oh and just to clarify, I ahve had the MAP twice, first time was in the late 90s when it was not available in Boots, and you had to see a doctor. Process was still the same (except I got a telling off for being young and stupid )

it has just occurred to me perhaps everyone who is horrified by all these attacks on women's right to control their own bodies ( and indeed to save their own lives in some cases - even if the foetus has died in utero, an abortion would be illegal in one of, these backward states, thus endangering a woman's life - so they're not so keen on the right to life when it comes to that of a full grown woman) should

Oopsi why would anyone need an internal exam in order to take a MAP?

oops oops bloody phone. was going to say, should write to the us embassy to tell them how awful they look?

the internal exam is purely in order to punish women for daring to exercise control over their lives.
There is no medical need for them
doctors should refuse to do them

But an ebryo isn't part of a womans body is it? It's a distinct and unique human life in its own right'.And of course i believe a person should have rights over their own body AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY ELSE!!

Regardless of your view on abortion, it's actually illegal to penetrate a woman's vagina against her will. This is known as rape.

By law in many states (I hesitate to say all as I do not 100% know), it does not have to be a penis in order to class as rape. Objects count too (as well they should). I think there my be exceptions when searching somebody for drugs, concealed weapons etc, but seeing as these women won't be on suspiscion of breaking any law, I cannot see how this could be classed as anything other than rape.

Vaginal examinations may be standard procedure during childbirth, but the woman should have given consent for that, and if she expressly says no, well doctors have to obey that. Since most women want the best outcome for their baby, most women are fine with it. If you're looking for an abortion, I doubt this is at forefront of your mind.

This is just an excuse to punish women for accessing a service they have a legal right to. Either abortion is legal, in which case women have a right to it, or it isn't. Having legal abortions but making them inaccesible is cowardly legislating, which helps nobody.

That depends what you believe, many people believe that until it is capable of life (medically assisted) outside the womb, then yes, it is an extension of the mother's body, potential life rather than actual life.
I really hope I am not upsetting anyone with this, that is not my intention.

Well it is sort of part of a woman's body until which point it can survive independently outside of it.

I'm always very interested to hear what solutions anti-abortion campaigners have for the vastly increased pressure on the care system if they achieve their goal. Because not everyone will suddenly decide they want to be a parent once the baby is born. Are they all going to volunteer to be foster carers or does their responsibly end once a woman is forced to carry a child against her will, no matter the circumstances?

I'm not sure of the validity of this argument, but the pragmatic approach says if abortion becomes illegal, then illegal abortions will rise. And tbh I don't know which is worse- illegal abortion or enforced parenthood.

They don't even consider themselves responsible for the child before it is born. They aren't in favour of free US antenatal care. So they think it is fine to put the unborn wanted babies of poor people at risk.

I really don't care about the niceties of whether a foetus is life or not, oopsie, I believe that women are full human beings and should not be required to sacrifice their own lives and welfare for sake of any other life. Even fireman or police officers aren't required to do that - only women and captains of ships. Well ships' captains sign up for that and get well paid for it and medals and high status. women don't and a society which valued women as highly as men, wouldn't require them to put their lives on the line for the sake of someone else's life

Basil I love you! You put into words what I have been trying to express for ages!

Here's how life should be (I think):
"I don't believe in abortions." Fine. Don't have one.
"I don't believe in contraception." That's cool. You don't have to use it.
And so on, et cetera.

You are welcome to your thoughts, opinions and beliefs but don't you dare presume that they are some how priveldged just because they belong to you.

I have this link bookmarked on my blackberry for when threads like this pop up:
choice for anti-choicers
The attack on womens rights that is going on over here is appalling but it is not just womens rights that are being attacked.
If these laws do what they are trying to do, they will only effect the people who don't have the money to access abortions in other places or 'under the counter' so to speak.
So the poorest sector of society, the sector least likely to be able to access contraceptive education, less able to access reliable contraceptives will be the most adversely effected. Having to keep babies that they cannot afford to support or their only method of accessing a procedure to which they are legally entitled will be in some back alley clinic, where as a consequence, the rate of mortality for this simple procedure will soar.
And that's what it boils down, teenage girls and women will end up dying as a consequence of these laws, like they used to before Roe vs Wade. Anyone who supports going back to that is, imho, a very sick and twisted individual.

What is so frightening about this is that these foaming fucking maniacs, who are motivated entirely by hatred of women, are being taken even slightly seriously. There's the maniac who wants women who have miscarried arrested and charged with murder in the first degree, with the burden of proof that they miscarried naturally on them or they get the death penalty. That chap is also the one who wanted the law amended for rape and domestic violence (not for any other crimes) so that the victim had to be referred to throughout the proceedings as 'the accuser' rather than 'the victim'.
And the ones who want women whose foetuses have died before birth to continue these blighted pregnancies to term rather than have any kind of medical procedure because THAT WOULD BE AN ABORTION and it's probably the slut's own fault her baby died anyway....

Do you think that they care what happens to the baby once it's born? Do you think that since they forced the woman to give birth they're going to make the man take any responsibility during pregnancy, childbirth and beyond even though it took two people to make the woman pregnant? I suspect that men might be less in favour if they thought that these laws could screw them over too.

Do these pompous, smug, moralising pro-life law-makers actually give a shit about the child and its health and welfare once its born? No. Their consciences only come into play when the decisions only adversely affect some woman who shouldn't have let herself get pregnant.

Apologies as this is a Daily Mail link, but they surprised me by running this story about a woman in Nebraska forced to give birth to a baby they knew would die because she wasn't allowed an abortion after 20 weeks.

"Julie Schmit-Albin, who heads Nebraska Right to Life, believes the tragic outcome was still better than an abortion."

For who??