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

[MitchieInge]

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

Shall we all club together and buy The Azores from the Portuguese (they need the cash)?

'catsrevil abortion is a procedure that is requested.'

Yes, but it will not be offered if it is not a suitable option.

As I have said already on this thread, I think that whatever serious point that could have been made has been derailed.

Ooh yes. But I expect a bunch of men would only come and invade.

"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?"

Abortion is requested, not offered.

Women and girls don't generally try to obtain abortions if they are not pregnant.

If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. The proposed law would enforce a minimum 24 hour 'cooling off period' between the scan and the abortion. This is in a state with practically no gun control, including no 'cooling off period' which many states mandate - you can walk into a shop and walk out 10 minutes later with a gun. They seem to care a lot about life in utero. Once you're born you're on your own.

GPs etc don't do pregnancy tests, they expect you to do them at home.
If you went to doc asking for abortion and said you hadn't done pregnancy test you would get told to go and do one.
If you were vulnerable in some way then you would be treated appropriately.

That is a superb nugget of info, puffin.

It's notorious because so many of the guns used in crimes in New York are originally bought legally in Virginia.

that's always the way - the pro lifers are usually the pro guns, anti welfare, anti free healthcare brigade. the irony.

fetus worship when you don't give a fuck about real living people.

Even better. Whilst pushing through the anti-abortion legislation they've still found time to do this.

Because sometimes one handgun a month just isn't enough.

Just read the Bill again - the purpose of the ultrasound is to determine gestational age. Not to see whether it is ectopic or anything else.

I still smell a rat that I haven't uncovered yet, but I bet someone has somewhere. Bloody hell, I was supposed to be having an early night.

Who on earth needs more than one handgun per month?

They don't like fireworks in Virginia, though.

The West Wing: The 76 year old grandmother.

ED
The 76 year old grandmother.

LARRY
Every time we use those assault stats, Carr and Gilmore come back...

SAM
Who's the 76 year old--

LARRY
Every day, 17,000 Americans defend themselves with a gun--

SAM
That's flat-out not true.

ED
--including a 76 year old grandmother in Chicago, who defended herself
against an
intruder in the middle of the night.

LARRY
Just don't use the stats.

SAM
The 76 year old grandmother doesn't defend herself with a modified AK-47
Assault
Rifle, Larry. Unless she's defending herself against Turkish rebels.

I want a real mingeologist to explain why this particular area of best practice needs to be made into a law when so many other parts of their work are not regulated in this way, or are there pending bills dealing in such detail with, I don't know, finer points of laparoscopic exploration (sorry, squeamish imagining gynae things)? Usually doctors seem to be free to develop evidence for and expertise in various procedures across all areas of health care without legal intervention. I'm sure they know when imaging is essential and when it isn't.

This law hasn't just popped up out of nowhere, and it isn't part of some wider benevolent campaign to improve women's access to reproductive health services.

Am I understanding this correctly, in that all women seeking abortion will have a vaginal scan? Even those for whom the abdominal one works just fine?

How can anyone see that as anything other than intrusive and designed to punish women? Have you seen the device that they use to perform vaginal scans? It is tremendously intimidating.

No, that is not the case.

Well, I've read it again, catsareevil, and though vaginal scans won't be in addition to abdominal, it certainly sounds as though vaginal ones will be required in many cases. The original link states that

a) ultrasounds are required under this bill
b) women tend to abort as early as possible
c) early abortions increase the likelihood of a vaginal scan

Interestingly, physicians themselves (quoted in that article) don't seem to think that any kind of scan is automatically necessary, and they prefer to use their discretion.

I am struggling to see this as anything other than another measure - like the 'cooling off period', like the 'informative' video - designed to make seeking abortion as difficult and traumatic as possible.

And of course, while we're tussling over this, we're inching further and further away from the bedrock of women's rights: that we have sovereign authority over our bodies, and what is in them.

That seems to have been completely forgotten in the mire of whether or not scans, or waiting lists, or time limits are 'good' for women or 'good' for foetuses.

Which, of course, is exactly the anti-choice agenda.

It is true that early in pregnancy a trans vaginal scan is more likely to be needed. That applies equally to people planning on proceeding with the pregnancy and people planning not to.

I dont see any reason to think that medical staff would use transvaginal scanning as a punitive measure. Even if it was accepted that that was the intention of the legislation (and I'm not convinced by that), I dont think that it would be utilised in that way. Abortion services tend not to be staffed by people who have a major ethical objection to abortion.

There are other aspects of this bill that concern me more. The requirement to offer an opportunity to hear the fetal heart seems to me to be more overtly aimed at getting women to change their mind, though I'm aware that they are able to decline this.

That applies equally to people planning on proceeding with the pregnancy and people planning not to.

People not planning on aborting won't be legally forced to have a scan! It's not standard to offer eg 7 week scans.

Who are these 'people' who might be having abortions? Back home, it is singularly women and girls who have them.

in any case, as roe vs wade enshrines the right to choose, states circumvent this by making that choice impracticable - unavailability of clinics, stupid wait times, having to recieve counselling, listen to heartbeats etc.

absolutlely none of this is being done for any other purpose than to prevent abortions from taking place, it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise

Begs the question as well, if tv scans are so critical, how did legal, safe abortions ever occur before they were developed? to hear some posters, that would be impossible

Would you want to have cardiac surgery without a scan beforehand? No?

Begs the question as well, if scans are so critical, how did legal, safe cardiac surgery ever occur before they were developed?

Why should women undergoing terminations not have access to high standards of assessment pre-procedure?

tv scans are not medically indicated in every case and need to be left to the discretion of the medical personnel, and subject to informed consent as are all other medical procedures

not

legislatively mandated in a bid to ensure that women's access to safe, legal abortions when they want and need them is compromised and eroded