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

[MitchieInge]

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

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.

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.

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.

Viva contraception isn't even free in the US.

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."

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Abdominal scan isn't always possible.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.