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

[MitchieInge]

(and other states I think) is there a thread about this already?

Missing an ectopic risks a life, a tube, future fertility... implying many/most are absorbed is disgraceful

Thats not what I said.

It's no good arguing about how terminations are carried out here or anywhere else. That's not the issue.

The language that lawmakers use is very specific. In this case it's "every pregnant female shall undergo" ? there's no ifs or buts about that, certainly no leeway for the woman, or the doctors or medical staff if they're dealing with a distressed woman. The oaths the doctors swore (variations of "first, do no harm") when they graduated have been completely over-written by lawmakers. But, as I said upthread, this bill isn't about best practice by medical staff, it's about the law mandating what all women shall undergo, whether that's necessary/in her best interests or not. The last thing this bill is about is "informed consent", because there cannot be "consent" when it's required by law.

But what if it is best practice to have a scan before a termination? Because from what I understand it is. Maybe this law is protecting women from shoddy clinics?

I would definetly have a problem with women having to have vaginal ultrasounds which is what the title of this thread made it sound like. But this isn't the case.

It was the last bit that really shocked me. Trying to make the woman look at the scan images as a means to applying pressure not to continue with the abortion. That is that bit that shifts it from being a (possibly) medically justifiable procedure to pure politics.

Viva - if it is best practice to have a scan before a termination, and there are concerns about shoddy clinics, then the bill should be aimed at doctors/clinics proving that they adhere to best practice. This bill has nothing to say about that.

but viva, many people seem to think that will be the practical impact of this law

what do you think is the purpose of offering to show patients images that 'accurately portray' the external members and internal organs of the foetus?

A copy of the ultrasound image would be required to be entered into the woman's medical records (at the facility) for 7 years. Why would that be necessary? It would be interesting to know if medical facilities are required by Sate law to keep images of, say, tumours or wisdom teeth that they have x-rayed and then removed. Here's the bill

Mark my words - within 3 years, there will be a direct challenge on Roe v Wade.

But the bill is aimed at clinics and drs. If it becomes law to have an ultrasound then the clincs and drs will have to abide by this.

I must have missed the bit in the bill where it says it wants to show patients images that 'accurately portray' the external members and internal organs of the foetus.

I just saw the bill saying that patients should be offered the choice of seeing scan images.

It's right at the very top, hard to miss.

read lines 18 - 31

sorry, forgot this link

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

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

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.

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.

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who doesn't get it. Even if it is fairly routine for the procedure to be offered elsewhere, so routine it is tantamount to being a requirement for termination, that is still not the same as enshrining it in law.

And I still don't understand the emphasis on external member and internal organs, is this normal here in the UK for example?

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.

do you really have to have that sort of detail, fine tune the gestational age to such an extent in order to safely terminate a pregnancy?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.