Bay, I am disappointed that you would characterize my remarks in this way–it’s very unfair. I said several times that I don’t approve of Bill Maher’s remarks, but I happen to think that what Rush did was worse, just as shooting at an unprotected person is worse that shooting at somebody in an armored car. I have the ability to condemn disgusting acts in different degrees based on how disgusting they are.</p>
<p>As far as Axelrod going on Maher’s show, I wish he wouldn’t, because I don’t like Maher–I thought what he said about Tebow was really low, for example. But if we’re going to play the tit-for-tat game, how about all the Republicans who’ve shared the stage at CPAC and elsewhere with Rush numerous times?</p>
<p>Hunt, you asked why we should care if Maher was “being bad,” and wrote “this is not kindergarten.” This indicated to me that you didn’t think anyone should care whether Maher called Palin a “c” or a “dumb twat,” and if we did care, we were acting like we are in kindergarten.</p>
<p>Personally, I’d feel less worse about being called a slut, than a “c” or a “dumb twat.” But I’d feel very degraded and angry about all of them.</p>
<p>I will NEVER use the word “rape” in that form. So don’t even bother asking me that. I KNOW what rape is, and an exam is NOT rape. </p>
<p>Yearly pelvic exams are good for sexually active women anyway. It’s why it’s covered by most insurance companies. My HMO doesn’t require it- my doctors do. I’m sure I could find a doctor that would give me a script without an exam.</p>
<p>There are a couple reasons for pelvic exam for prescribing BCPs. BCPs can have side effects, some rare ones are serious so like most prescription drugs it is best to have a health care professional in the loop. Also, I suspect it is way to make sure women get a yearly exam which is especially important for young women who are at higher risk for HPV.</p>
<p>I come into the abortion provider’s office. I just missed my period so I’m six or seven weeks pregnant, I have a positive pregnancy test and I want a medical (pill) abortion. For medical reasons, I’d have to get a transvaginal ultrasound in that situation before I’d get the abortion pill?</p>
<p>I’m certain there would be no medical reason for me to have to wait 24 hours.</p>
<p>CF, on that same note, I still want to know who has to pay for that ultrasound. What if the insurance company doesn’t cover it? Does the government cover it in the bill? Or are you SOL on the abortion pill? Or are there waivers in other states like the one in IL?</p>
<p>Ultrasounds, if you have to pay out of pocket, are far too expensive for many people.</p>
This is an interesting comment. Government regulation of minimum included services in standardized insurance contracts is as old as the hills and never “sparked a backlash” by freedom-loving Americans before to my knowledge.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a legislated requirement that a doctor subject a patient to procedure A before providing treatment B is pretty unusual in my experience.</p>
<p>If “Americans do not like the government telling them what to do” is the issue, why are those who purport to speak for the aforesaid “Americans” objecting to the BCP requirement instead of the ultrasound one? Am I missing something here? It seems like the only real issue is whether the “Americans” in question approve of people having access to the medical goods and services at all, not what role government plays.</p>
<p>sylvan, I don’t know. Never been in that situation. However, ultrasounds would just be another, perhaps unnecessary, expense. It’s another potential hurdle for many women for something legal.</p>
Read more carefully, LasDad. There have been plenty of objections to the ultrasound on this and the previous thread. Some of which was totally irrespponsible.</p>
<p>My doc doesn’t require the exams until the patient is 21 or has been sexually active for three years. I found that odd and started getting the exams when I started the pill anyway, even though I actually could have made it another 3-4 years by my doctor’s policy.</p>
<p>I’ve always been of the opinion that the requirement is just a way to force sexually active patients to get yearly exams, my doctor has basically told me as much… which as someone who would have the exams anyway, has always ground my gears in a serious way. </p>
<p>Worth noting that while my bcps are covered by my insurance (with a $7 copay I think?), STD testing is not and I just paid a fortune for one of those because I do them routinely as part of my annual exam. Blows my mind a bit that THAT’S not covered or required.</p>
Depending on the provider, it is not always an additional expense, it is a diagnostic tool as part of the procedure. Depends on the provider, though.</p>
<p>You are wrongly assuming that they are not. I am one who objects to both. Some will object to one or the other or both or neither. It depends upon who the mandate affects or offends.</p>
While I am uncomfortable with the mandate and don’t support EITHER mandate, there is absolutely a medical necessity for ultrasound prior to abortion. Unquestionably.</p>
The waiting period should only come into play if the woman chooses to take that time for herself or if there is some reason that her doctor feels it is necessary. The imposition of thet waiting period is without a doubt intrusive and, in my opinion, inappropriate.</p>
Why is it so supremely difficult for some people to understand that their hysteria is endangering women? There are several reasons why ultrasound is medically appropriate before abortion and making women think they are being sexually assaulted is irresponsible. Mandate - no. Responsible rhetoric - yes.</p>
<p>
And every pregnancy needs to be dated prior to termination. Those 2% of women aren’t fungible. If even one dies or loses her fertility because she could have had a safe ultrasound and a safe abortion, that is not acceptable.</p>