• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ultrasound Requirement Passed into law

WakeandBake said:
waste of time and resources, and an insult to women undergoing a perfectly legal procedure. Hypocritical and obnoxious on the part of the lawmakers and those who support it.
Click to expand...

Actually, it makes some sense in Virginia. Third trimester abortions are largely illegal in VA, so using an ultrasound to establish the age of the fetus helps reinforce existing law.

BTW, I don't support the ultrasound provision.
 
WFU71 said:
Actually, it makes some sense in Virginia. Third trimester abortions are largely illegal in VA, so using an ultrasound to establish the age of the fetus helps reinforce existing law.

BTW, I don't support the ultrasound provision.
Click to expand...

I don't have time right now to explain all of the things wrong with this post right now. So, until I do, everyone please ignore it.
 
I had a feeling I would regret that post. Take your time, I can wait :)
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
DOA in court. The legislate can't force an unwanted, unnecessary medical expenditure on a patient. No chance this holds up.
Click to expand...

FIFY, Obamacarestyle.

And, to address your original point, vaccinations for schools. If you want to go to school, get vaccinated. If you want to get an abortion, get an ultrasound.
 
You never cease to amaze me. Vaccinations protect other kids and staff at schools. They are a public health issue and are medically necessary.

Demanding an ultrasound has no medical necessity and has nothing to do with public health.
 
There is no medical necessity or public health interest in examining the developmental progress of a fetus about to be killed before killing it? Holy shit.
 
If the woman is having an abortion (which is 100% legal), there is no medical or public health reason to have an ultrasound. NONE

The fact you can't see it isn't suprising.
 
Just because it's legal doesn't mean we shouldn't advise against it and provide education. What is so offensive about asking someone who is going to kill a fetus to have all the facts first? What harm comes of this? If you want to have the right to kill a fetus, what's the harm in asking her to think about it first? As a society that is divided on how to protect life in this regard, why isn't this a reasonable compromise?
 
To say they haven't thought about they are about do before they get to the doctor's office or hospital is ludicrous.

This is not a compromise. It's an intrusive demand.

It's astonishing that the same people who oppose the government demanding you buy insurance are the same people that have no problem demanding the government have control of a woman's body.

Pocketbook- bad

Control of a person's body -FINE
 
WFU71 said:
Actually, it makes some sense in Virginia. Third trimester abortions are largely illegal in VA, so using an ultrasound to establish the age of the fetus helps reinforce existing law.

BTW, I don't support the ultrasound provision.
Click to expand...

DeacinBama said:
I don't have time right now to explain all of the things wrong with this post right now. So, until I do, everyone please ignore it.
Click to expand...

WFU71 said:
I had a feeling I would regret that post. Take your time, I can wait :)
Click to expand...

Okay, so this response will be overkill, but maybe the extraneous information will prove instructive.

First of all, the most accurate estimation of gestational age is a first-trimester ultrasound. Once into the second trimester, the last menstrual period (LMP) is more accurate. Therefore, if one wants to determine the estimated gestational age (EGA) around the beginning of the third trimester, then an ultrasound is not the most accurate means. It may be the only means, if the LMP is indeterminate, but it is not preferable.

Second of all, routine prenatal care dictates a mid-2nd trimester ultrasound, which - together with LMP - should establish the EGA well before the question of 2nd vs. 3rd trimester comes up. Will there be women who don't present for prenatal care before this point? Of course, but they are the exception. Also, late presentation for prenatal care is justification for referral to Child Protective Services in quite a few states, so that's further disincentive to remain ignorant of EGA.

Thirdly, even in the absence of an ultrasound, LMP is accurate for predicting EGA. For the vast majority of women who are considering abortion, their LMP will provide enough information to determine whether or not the pregnancy is in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.

Lastly, the percentage of pregnant women who consider abortion late in the 2nd trimester is incredibly small, meaning that we're talking about a very tiny percentage of the relevant population to begin with.

Bottom line: are there a handful of pregnancies for which an ultrasound will make the difference between a legal 2nd trimester and an illegal 3rd trimester abortion? Yes, but the numbers are so small that it hardly warrants consideration. And that rationale definitely does not justify obtaining ultrasounds on all women considering abortion.
 
DeacDiggler said:
Just because it's legal doesn't mean we shouldn't advise against it and provide education. What is so offensive about asking someone who is going to kill a fetus to have all the facts first? What harm comes of this? If you want to have the right to kill a fetus, what's the harm in asking her to think about it first? As a society that is divided on how to protect life in this regard, why isn't this a reasonable compromise?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between advising and mandating. The government has campaigns that advise against smoking. That is a far cry from requiring someone to obtain a chest CT scan before buying a pack of cigarettes.

You ask what's wrong with asking someone who is going to kill a fetus to have all the facts first? Well, I know of no facts that a pre-abortion ultrasound can provide to an pregnant woman that aren't already available to her, and I interpret obstetric ultrasounds for a living (among other things). As best as I can tell, the concept is nothing more than an emotional ploy, designed to exploit the fact that humans are - by our nature - visual creatures. Anti-abortion advocates appear to believe that if a woman can see her baby, then she'll change her mind. That's an interesting tactic, but it has no legal or philosophical basis, in my opinion. That says nothing of the "big brother" aspect of the mandate, which I find bothersome.

What harm comes of this? Plenty. If the legal or philosophical grounds don't bother you, then let's consider the financial. A quick search of the CDC statistics esimates that around 800,000 (known) abortions are performed per year in the U.S. Let's further estimate that the cost of an ultrasound for each of these is (conservatively) $500. That's $400 million dollars a year added to an already bloated healthcare system.

Perhaps worst of all is that there is no data to confirm that such ultrasounds will actually prevent abortions. Again, anti-abortion advocates believe that it will save fetuses, but at what rate? How much are we - as a society - willing to spend to prevent one abortion? What if a study were to find that the ultrasounds have no impact on the abortion rate? Then we'd just be throwing money away.

In conclusion, I can't help but see this as an emotional ploy. Anti-abortion folks have heretofore been unable to outlaw the procedure outright, so they appear to be trying to end-run the system. And this is coming from someone who isn't exactly in favor of abortion, as I have yet to hear a convincing justification for it (but that's a different discussion).

In any case, I realize that reasonable people can disagree, especially about this issue, so I welcome civil commentary and discussion vis-a-vis my thoughts.
 
The greedy politicains can ram any law down your throat they want to ram down your throat. Your only hope is that millions and millions of people agree with you and can scare the greedy politicians into reversing course or that the courts strike it. Right now the courts are liberal and probably will negate this one, but you never know; rest assured during your lifetime you will have lots of stupid shit stuffed into your throat by the political class. You have yourself to blame: you gave them the power, thinkiing it would always be used to your advantage, but it won't!
 
Wrangor said:
http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/mandatory-ultrasound-before-abortions-now-law

A good step. The more we know about the child in the womb, the harder it will be to discard of them so easily. Perhaps this will save some lives. I have no problem with healthcare mandates when they are proper, so that might put me in the big government camp at time. If a girl is going to make the decision to end a life, then the least we can do is require she sees all the information before doing so.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe you can roll this shit out there under the auspices of "educating the public"? if you want to be "pro life" (while I differ) I can respect your position and view. Rhetoric like this, like mandatory ultra sounds is insulting and a violation of a women's right to the sanctity of her own body and her right to chose.
 
"You ask what's wrong with asking someone who is going to kill a fetus to have all the facts first? Well, I know of no facts that a pre-abortion ultrasound can provide to an pregnant woman that aren't already available to her, and I interpret obstetric ultrasounds for a living (among other things). As best as I can tell, the concept is nothing more than an emotional ploy, designed to exploit the fact that humans are - by our nature - visual creatures. Anti-abortion advocates appear to believe that if a woman can see her baby, then she'll change her mind. That's an interesting tactic, but it has no legal or philosophical basis, in my opinion. That says nothing of the "big brother" aspect of the mandate, which I find bothersome."

This. All of this.
 
How is an ultrasound invasive? Especially considering the procedure the woman is about to undergo.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
How is an ultrasound invasive? Especially considering the procedure the woman is about to undergo.
Click to expand...

do you want the government to tell you what procedures you have to have on your body? Even when there is no medical reason for the procedure?
 
Before I kill a living being? That seems fair.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
How is an ultrasound invasive? Especially considering the procedure the woman is about to undergo.
Click to expand...

Invasive is a relative term, obviously, and in general imaging tests are considered non-invasive. (That's sort of their point - we get information without having to tear a hold in your body, i.e. operate.) Still, it doesn't follow that an unwelcome, relatively non-invasive procedure (ultrasound) is okay just because a woman has opted for an elective, relatively invasive procedure (abortion). At least among physicians, performing a procedure without the consent of the patient or a designated surrogate is considered battery.

For what it's worth, below is a picture of an endovaginal ultrasound transducer. I don't have a cooter, but I can tell you that women - in general - find the EV portion of the examination uncomfortable, especially if that haven't already had a vaginal delivery. I'll leave it those with only X chromosomes to declare whether that thing is considered "invasive".

probe1.jpg
 
Last edited:
My approval of this has everything to do with my belief that they are unknowingly murdering a life. If having an ultrasound before they commit the act causes even a small percentage of the women to rethink their decision and decide against going through with the abortion then I am all for it.

The women should see the life they ate going to end before they end it in my opinion. If they can watch their little child's beating heart and all of the other beautiful workings of the human body that an ultrasound shows and then still pull the trigger then my heart goes out to them for they are truly blind.

I think most pro choice people who are against this are feigning government intervention incredulity when in fact it is more the horror of making a woman look her victim in the eye before ending the life of the fetus/child.

I have no problem with government mandates when they are proper. Vaccines are proper. This is proper. We must cease to marginalize the decision of an abortion and get a good view of the implications before going through with it. I cannot think of a better way than watching a live video of your child in the womb....growing....kicking....heart beating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top