<p>zoose, I edited my post because of your politics point. Just FYI.</p>
<p>Romani, you know I adore you and we share a passionate love of dogs, but I am not the enemy here. I am an older woman who knows a lot of younger women who are being bombarded with the opinion that ultrasound as part of abortion is a form of sexual abuse. It’s not. It’s one of the the things that get all of us to the safe part of “safe, legal and rare.”</p>
<p>I have not caught up on the entire thread…but someone actually said a vaginal ultrasound was equivalent to rape!!! Oh my word…I had to have one of these and I have never been raped so I guess I can not do a truly valid comparison but my common sense would not put these into the same category.</p>
<p>And, yes Zoosermom…if this does not qualify as a political thread then I think CC needs to clarify the definition. What started out as a question - possibly remotely related to the college experience - has denigrated into a talk show host evaluation and an Axelrod appearance. Oh…and a good bit of thrashing the members of a certain religious organization along the way. But, yeah, not political one little bit.</p>
<p>zoose, I’m not trying to make you into an enemy. I am listening to you and because of that edited my post. I do not want it to be zoose vs. romani and I tried to avoid that. </p>
<p>I still stick by what I said- make the choice between you and your doctor- NOT the politicians. If the doctor wants you to have an ultrasound, trust him/her (generally… we’ve seen the doctors who abuse tests here on CC). But I want politics out of my uterus… I hope that makes sense.</p>
<p>You can’t overlook the fact that many/most of these news laws mandate a 24 hour waiting period between the ultrasound and the abortion. Is such a wait medically necessary?</p>
<p>^ That’s something I’m against because again, it’s politics going between the doctor and the patient. </p>
<p>Many women can’t afford to take two days off of work like that (once for the ultra sound and once for the procedure). Even if it’s only part of the day, that’s still too much time off. IMO, it’s an unncessary burden for something that’s legal.</p>
<p>
Surely you are not opposed to all regulations regarding abortions that the government may wish to, or already does, impose? </p>
<p>While I can understand the reluctance to a transv ultrasound, a regular one does not seem to be outside the bounds of reason.</p>
<p>Pardon my ignorance, but what is the MEDICAL reason for an ultrasound prior to an abortion? I can understand a host of non-medical reasons but don’t understand why this is medically necessary. Am not aware of other countries that require ultrasounds prior to an abortion or other medical procedure so am quite curious.</p>
<p>Personally, I am opposed to unnecessary medical procedures and tests and prefer not to have them add to the already high medical expenses our country is already paying. As far as I know, nearly all medical procedures have the potential for side effects, as well as increasing costs and time–of medical personnel and patients.</p>
<p>sylvan, as it stands now, I want abortion to be legal. Most everything else should be left between me and my doctor.</p>
<h1>488 to r/o an ectopic pregnancy?</h1>
<p>“How is Axelrod going on Maher NOT feeding into the echo chamber? I’m confused.”</p>
<p>I’m talking about the principle that going on someone’s show doesn’t mean you’re endorsing everything they do or say. There was discussion upthread that Maher ought to be a pariah because of the language he has used outside of the show, and that it’s hypocritical to criticize Rush and then go on Maher’s show. I don’t agree with that. I think it’s OK to go on pretty much anybody’s show to talk to their fans, including when the host has said terrible things. There’s nothing hypocritical about it.</p>
<p>Maher and Axelrod happen to be on the same side of the aisle, but most of the time when this question comes up, that isn’t true.</p>
<p>HIMom: The reason is to confirm the age and location of the pregnancy. There are other ways to do this, but some doctors prefer the ultrasound method. Early in the first trimester, all ultrasounds must be transvaginal, because the uterus is too small to be visible transabdominally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is it so supremely difficult for some people to understand that it’s a question of consent? And, yes, inserting an implement into a woman’s vagina without her consent when it isn’t medically necessary is, without question, within the legal definition of rape – rape with an object or implement. Whether it’s painful or not is irrelevant, but I’ve heard a lot of women say that they found the procedure extremely painful. If a doctor says it’s medically necessary, and a woman accepts the doctor’s advice, that’s an entirely different story. But a bunch of forced-birther legislators – none of whom have the remotest idea of whether something is medically necessary, and couldn’t care less – mandating something like this as a blanket requirement, without regard to a woman’s individual medical circumstances, for entirely politico-religious reasons, based on their desire to make abortions as difficult to achieve as possible, as well as their fantasies that forcing women to have ultrasounds will cause them to change their minds about having abortions? Yes. It’s legislated rape, and anyone who argues the contrary – including the nonsense one sees about “well, she already consented when she got herself pregnant in the first place,” as if consenting to sex once constitutes permanent consent for all time to all future physical assaults – is kidding themselves. </p>
<p>I really do like some of the ironic counter-legislation that’s been proposed, like requiring any man who wants a Viagra prescription filled to have a urethral ultrasound.</p>
<p>
I understand the fervor to keep it legal, but I would also want the provider to be required to have a license, to have a clean and adequately supplied facility, to be prepared to address, somehow, an emergency situation should one arise, to use medically approved methods, etc. </p>
<p>We want the government to take steps to ensure that other services we receive are “safe”, why should this one be different? Or do we believe that every would-be abortion provider is an altruistic saint who would only do the very very best thing possible?</p>
<p>Well, as I said, I want it between my doctor and I. I don’t see the requirements for doctors or hospitals radically changing any time soon.</p>
<p>ectoptic pregnancies are less than 2% of recognized pregnancies.</p>
<p>Can a woman get a prescription for bcps without a pelvic exam? She would not have to if bcps were available over the counter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Zooserman, I don’t hear anyone objecting to pre-abortion ultrasounds. What I hear people objecting to is the mandate. The proponents of these laws seem to say that they, not the doctor, know how medicine should be practiced. They seem to say that they, not the woman, get to determine which factors enter into her decision. (And they are downright insulting in making the assumption that the woman doesn’t know what’s happening inside her own body and must be forced by the kindly state legislature to learn.) And they definitely say that neither the doctor nor the woman can be trusted to know what is best. This is government at its most intrusive.</p>
<p>The “medically necessity” argument just doesn’t wash. What is the medical necessity of the requirement to “offer” the woman the chance to see the image – and if she declines, recording that fact in her chart (Virginia)? What is the medical necessity of requiring that the machine be positioned such that the image is within the woman’s field of vision (Texas)? What is the medical necessity of forcing the woman to listen to the fetal heartbeat (Texas. Oklahoma revised the law only under intense pressure; women are now “invited” to listen). What is the medical necessity of requiring the provider to give a verbal description of the fetus’ development (Texas)? What is the medical necessity of the 24-hour waiting period (various states – meaning the woman is forced to incur the cost of two separate trips to the provider. In states where providers are few and far between, this can be a big time burden as well)?</p>
<p>Of course, there is no medical necessity for any of these mandates. They are clearly intended to shame or intimidate women into changing their minds about exercising their constitutionally-protected rights, or failing that, to place obstacles in the way.</p>
<p>DonnaL: I specifically state that common sense was involved in my assessment of the situation. One can draw counterfeit correlations among just about any two data points. I understand the ‘socio-political’ desire to do so in this case.</p>
<p>As a lawyer, you may have used an ‘insanity’ defense at one time or another. This is a legal definition, yet it has not existed in the DSM for sometime as a recognized medical condition. So you can be legally insane, but not medically. You can be penetrated by an ultrasound device (but as I understand the law you will not be dragged by force onto into an ultrasound room, held down, and then violently penetrated). That is a common sense definition or rape. But, yes, the ‘law’ and common sense often part ways. Well…that at least explains a lot!</p>
<p>Except that you haven’t explained what’s counterfeit about the correlation, or what it is that *doesn’t * fit within the legal definition of rape. All you’re doing is stating a conclusion.</p>
<p>I do agree that I don’t understand what the basis is for deciding that a thread is excessively political. But as long as it’s here, and has lasted for nearly 500 comments, I figured that I might as well state my opinion.</p>
<p>I answered my own question: Pelvic exams are NOT required in order to get a birth control prescription. [Women</a> seeking birth control get unneeded pelvic exams | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/22/us-birth-control-idUSTRE6AL67X20101122]Women”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/22/us-birth-control-idUSTRE6AL67X20101122) So again, why are bcps available only by prescription?</p>