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

[MitchieInge]

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

Make sure you save some ire for this

it's not misleading, there will be women who will have this procedure for no medical reason

Not misleading at all. This has nothing to do with women's health or why would it require a second scan to be performed immediately prior to the abortion?

I'm taking on board all ToothbrushThief's points about the medical justifications for a scan prior to abortion and am persuaded that this makes sense medically.

But I agree with Sardine Queen that this bill specifically pertains to ultrasounds for reasons for informed consent and that is suspicious. I don't see that it is necessary to have an ultrasound, costing you hundreds of dollars to boot, in order to give sufficiently informed consent to an abortion. The bill technically doesn't think so either, because it allows women to decline the offer to see the fetus and continue on to consent to the abortion procedure anyway. Yet it is nonetheless legally requiring the scan to be done - for the CONSENT reason (as stated at the top of the bill), NOT the medical reason, if I am reading it right.

So the bill's message, as I see it, is: "you can give sufficient consent to an abortion without seeing the fetus on a scan, but we insist you pay for one anyway because you might be even better informed". Which I can only interpret in the wider political context as: because it may change your mind. This is what bothers me about the bill. Even though the scan might be of value medically.

And that Texas ruling REALLY bothers me. You HAVE to see the scan??

Seeing as you asked, I've had a tv scan. Not sure that's relevant though.

Hormone levels wouldn't work, they're not accurate. They could be low but low not due to early gestation but due to impending miscarriage.

Palpation is too inaccurate.

Patient history, I said earlier I've seen women swear blind they can't be ore than 8 weeks and a scan finds them to be 13 weeks.

Police records might show when someone was raped but not that they got pregnant at the rape. Maybe they got pregnant three weeks earlier?

MRI and ct scans have long waiting lists and are expensive so no I can't imagine the nhs would offer those. Not even sure they could be used to accurately date a pregnancy either.

What they would probably do and I say this for about the fifth time is offer for them to come back in a weeks time if they declined a vaginal scan. And who's to say they won't do this in Virginia.?

It is misleading, as has been extensively pointed out over the course of this thread.

Any serious point has been lost in amongst posts about forcing rape victims to have transvaginal scans.

wodaling that is exactly what I have been trying to get at but have unfortunately been frothing rather than writing succinct posts like yours

Viva coming back in a weeks time is no guarantee that another type of scan will work.

I had to have tv scans all through my second pregnancy as they couldn't see anything the usual way

What if I had been a rape victim in virginia?

do you see anything in the bill to allay fears that intrusive imaging techniques won't be performed on rape victims catsareevil? Is it derogable, in such cases where abdominal scans fail, under some other statutory provision then?

Why is there a suggestion that people who have been raped should be offered a lower standard of diagnosis and appropriate treatment than people who have not been raped?

Viva are you seriously suggesting that the NHS in the UK would insist on a transvaginal scan in a 13 yo rape victim? I don't see it. Really I don't.

They would look at other sources of information - like the ones I mentioned - police, patient history, hormones, and come to a conclusion. If they absolutely had to perform a TV scan even after looking at all other info they might offer a GA.

The NHS would not force a child to undergo a TV scan in order to perform an abortion. They just wouldn't. Why are people who work in the NHS putting this about?

Sure it's an extreme example - but equally - 13yo get raped and want abortions, it's not that uncommon. And these are the sort of people this new law in virginia will really hurt.

"Why is there a suggestion that people who have been raped should be offered a lower standard of diagnosis and appropriate treatment than people who have not been raped?"

OFFERED is the key word there.

This is not an OFFER it is a COMPULSORY PROCEDURE.

This is not about offering, cats. It's about making it law.

A woman who knows when they got pregnant, like a rape victim who is a virgin, or someone who knows that they have only had sex once in the past 9 months, would still have to have a TV ultrasound if a heartbeat is not detected by an abdominal ultrasound. By law. Does (S)state control and invasion of a woman's body at a legal level not worry you?

Virginia is over 5 times the size of Wales. It had 22 clinics and hospitals that provided abortion services. Had. This probably got rid of a few.]]

"Viva are you seriously suggesting that the NHS in the UK would insist on a transvaginal scan in a 13 yo rape victim? I don't see it. Really I don't.

They would look at other sources of information - like the ones I mentioned - police, patient history, hormones, and come to a conclusion. If they absolutely had to perform a TV scan even after looking at all other info they might offer a GA.

The NHS would not force a child to undergo a TV scan in order to perform an abortion. They just wouldn't. Why are people who work in the NHS putting this about?"

You have acknowledged that this is an area that you dont know about. Just because you think that something shouldnt be a particular way, doesnt mean it isnt.

Putting it another way, do you really think that a 13 year old rape victim should be given a surgical procedure without efforts being made to make sure that it is the appropriate procedure, that it remains necessary, and that it can be done safely. Vivas post of 23:40:35 explains why your suggestions of checking police records, hormones etc wont work. If you are saying that a GA would be offered if a TV scan really was needed then it seems that you do aknowledge that it may be the only option.

A woman who knows when they got pregnant, like a rape victim who is a virgin, or someone who knows that they have only had sex once in the past 9 months, would still have to have a TV ultrasound if a heartbeat is not detected by an abdominal ultrasound.

How do they know they are still pregnant, and that it is intrauterine?

Also, people have the right to make decisions that are potentially detrimental to themselves.

Proper informed consent would go

You need a scan to say how far along you are, so we can give appropriate procedure
Hmm no thanks
We need to check gestation
Scan is against my beliefs, these are my dates, I am sure
We need to do scan
No way hose
If we don't do a scan there is possibility we will give the wrong procedure = risk to you
Yes I see
These are the risks if you don't have the scan
I understand
Are you sure, you see that x and y and z?
Yes
OK then sign this piece of paper, it's your body, we will go ahead.

That is informed consent. What is being talked about on this thread is something else.

You know, for years I naively thought that reproductive rights in the West had been pretty much done and dusted. I never thought that I would be having to go through the same arguments (broadly speaking, not on this thread) as my mother's generation.

En guarde, sistas.

garde?

Informed consent is about refusing or accepting offered procedures. Its not about insisting on things that are not offered.

Where do you draw the line then? What if someone didnt want to have a pregnancy test either?

Thanks, SardineQueen. And what also bothers me about this is how many women won't be able to afford the scan, whether it be abdominal or vaginal, if they aren't allowed to claim on their health insurance for it. Which is probably an intended side-effect of the bill.

catsrevil your language is interesting

You frame the scan in terms of being "offered" when in fact it is compulsory.

You frame the abortion as a person being "given a surgical procedure" when that is in fact what has been requested.

Article on the two laws being considered at the moment.

Previous bill that will outlaw private insurance companies from providing abortion coverage under proposed Obama healthcare plan.

catsrevil abortion is a procedure that is requested.

It's depressing isn't it Aye Robot, I often think of women's rights as on a piece of stretchy elastic, which will ping right back if we don't keep on fighting.