<p>
</p>
<p>I was referring to the pelvic exam. We could very well go to the same place, honestly, I don’t think there are too many of those in our area and I wouldn’t be surprised if we got different information-- this is the same doc that told me she didn’t recommend gardasil to patients that already reliably got a yearly pap anyway and changed her mind once it was no longer covered by my insurance. <em>facepalm</em></p>
<p>“For medical reasons, I’d have to get a transvaginal ultrasound in that situation before I’d get the abortion pill?”</p>
<p>Dating and locating the pregnancy is necessary with a medical abortion, just as with a surgical one. A patient could be mistaken or mis-report the date of the last period. However, ultrasound isn’t the only way to do this. It seems to be a question of training and preference on the part of each provider.</p>
<p>Isn’t there a big difference between mandating coverage and mandating a procedure? To my eye, it’s a difference so immense that we shouldn’t even use the same term for both situations. One preserves and maximizes the individual’s freedom to select medical care with a doctor’s help; the other limits it.</p>
<p>Haha ema, I deleted it because I realized it might have been too personal. Sorry bout that :p. I’ll PM later.</p>
<p>there is absolutely a medical necessity for ultrasound prior to abortion. Unquestionably.</p>
<p>Don’t MDs learn palpation anymore?:rolleyes:
As soon as you suspect a pregnancy you can have a blood test & combine with a menstrual history, I don’t think ultrasounds are automatic requirements for all pregnancies.</p>
<p>I had several ultrasounds through my 1st pregnancy , up until the day I delivered. The last ultrasound was inaccurate BTW because they said she weighed less & was a younger SGA than she actually was.
I knew her GA, because I had, had a blood test that told me when I was pg.</p>
<p>DonnaL:
</p>
<p>Claiming this procedure is rape IMHO denigrates the actual atrocity that a ‘real’ rape victim has endured. Yes, you are right, according to the legal definition it qualifies as rape. However, this is where my common sense statement comes into play. Stating that a ‘real’ rape and a TV Ultrasound are the same thing is counterfeit because the intent, rage, force, etc. which a non-legally trained citizen (an thereby most of the voting public) associates with this crime is not present in the medical procedure. But it will cause a visceral reaction in some/many that accept this relationship at face value. And…I know that is the goal.</p>
<p>And please…before there are a slew of posts regarding my use of the term ‘real’ rape…it is the best I could come up with to define what Joesephina the Plummer thinks of when the term is used.</p>
<p>I am the child of parents who survived WWII, in two separate countries where the war was waged full bore. This correlation of ultrasound to rape - to me - is as insulting, hyperbolic and yes offensive - as when talk radio personalities or participants in internet dialogues resort to the N**i card. You know … when trying to shut the other up…it works well to counterfeit correlate their behavior or words to what was done during that era. It is an effective tactic.</p>
<p>
I didn’t say automatic requirements, that was your term. What I object to is freaking out women so irresponsibly. If a doctor tells a woman that in her case, the ultrasound is necessary, she should have it done. She shouldn’t think “gee, I’m being sexually assaulted or forced to pay for an unnecessary procedure.” Some on CC and some out in the greater world have really covered themselves in shame on this issue. I can’t tell you how many Facebook petitions and other forms of mob menality I’ve seen. Young women are more likely to have irregular periods and need confirmation of the gestational age. RU486 is only appropriate early in pregnancy, so it is important to be sure of gestational age before that method is chosen, and it is never appropriate in an ectopic pregnancy. Without ulttrasound it is not reliable to diagnose ectopic pregnancy at the very early stage at which life and fertility are most able to be preserved with medical intervention. Relying on palpation at that stage to ensure life and fertility is ludicrous. Women seeking abortions are also less likely to be seeing a provider with whom there is an ongoing relationship and a history of trust, so the words of Aunt Crunchy on Facebook who is trafficking in hyperbole will carry more weight than they might otherwise. Oppose the mandate, but step back on the other side of the line into responsibleville.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope that we can all agree that if a provider tells a woman it is necessary or best to have an ultrasound, then it is a good thing that such a tool is available. The government shouldn’t come between a woman and her doctor, but neither should public opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what? Do you believe that doctors are unqualified to advise their patients? If ultrasounds are best practice, and if they’re routinely performed, why are these new laws necessary?</p>
<p>And I’m La’s MA, not La’s DAD. :)</p>
<p>Zoose, I sincerely hope we can agree that the decision of whether or not an ultrasound is necessary should be between a doctor and patient, not congress.</p>
<p>ETA (sorry, I passed the alloted time on the above).</p>
<p>zoose, let’s stipulate that ultrasound should be performed in 100% of cases. Let’s even stipulate that some doctors won’t do it, and must be forced by law.</p>
<p>That still doesn’t explain the other aspects of these laws. </p>
<p>I’m curious – what’s your explanation as to why women must be forced to listen to the fetal heartbeat, or to wait 24 hours? Are these things medically necessary? There must be some reason they’re being required; what do you think it is?</p>
<p>In fairness to Zoosermom I’m pretty sure she understands that these policies have been enacted as a backdoor way to get around at least part of Roe v. Wade - she’s not stupid! </p>
<p>I think all that Zoosermom is reacting against is what she perceives as misinformation cropping up from some comments about the ultrasound statute, and probably agrees with more of what you say than not.</p>
<p>OK my bad then. The “medical necessity” argument is one of many which are being used to try to indirectly deprive women of their constitutionally-protected right. Just wanted to be clear that the worst part of these laws isn’t the forced ultrasound – which is bad enough – but the ways in which the anti-choice forces are seeking to dissuade women from a choice which is theirs and theirs alone.</p>
<p>dissuading the anti-life folks is not a bad thing…then again, maybe it’s best that those genes are not passed on.</p>
<p>Hunt quote:
. Also, the difference between the two women is that the one Maher insulted was a powerful public figure, and the other wasn’t. But so what if Maher did something bad? As I said before, what is this, kindergarten?</p>
<p>======</p>
<p>What? so it’s ok to call Hilary Clinton a horrible name? No, it’s not. And I’m no HC fan. But, I don’t think that being a powerful woman who holds differing political views makes her a target for awful, sexually-insulting name.</p>
<p>If you disagree with someone, fine. To hit them “below the belt” (literally) is just gross.</p>
<p>Mom2collegekids, what Hunt is saying is that “but [X] did it tooooo!!!” isn’t a mature “rebuttal” for allies of someone who has done something wrong to make, with X being some person perceived to hold opposing views.</p>
<p>Common, but not mature.</p>
<p>Regarding medical necessity:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>N.B. – Nothing prevents (or ever has prevented) a doctor from ordering a pre-abortion ultrasound if he/she believes it’s medically necessary. Perhaps it is necessary in virtually all cases. But that is the doctor’s call, not the legislature’s.</p>
<p>And this tidbit from the same article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Virginia’s</a> Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Law Medically Unsound-Violates Guidelines of American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/03/08/virginias-pre-abortion-ultrasound-law-medically-unsound-violates-guidelines-of-american-college-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists/]Virginia’s”>Virginia's Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Law Medically Unsound-Violates Guidelines of American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since when?</p>
<p>Completely false, in my experience.</p>
<p>I can’t link to it, but I found this online, from Dr. Jen Gunter, on her blog; you too can bring it up using Google. She is an OB/GYN. She reports:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>geeps20 Quote:
dissuading the anti-life folks is not a bad thing…then again, maybe it’s best that those genes are not passed on.</p>
<p>========</p>
<p>Funny…but to be pro-life you have to respect all life…even life that holds anti-life positions.</p>
<p>I know it won’t happen in my lifetime, but there will be a time when people will look at abortion with similar/same abhorrence that they look at other anti-rights issues like slavery. The unborn should have rights.</p>
<p>The reason why the pro-aborts hate the idea of an ultrasound requirement prior to abortion is because much of the “success” (ugh) of abortion rests on the lie (and misinformation) that it’s just a “bunch of cells.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? You KNOW this? That’s a pretty strong statement. </p>
<p>I think that we’ll look back in horror at the fact that we forced women to do anything related to something LEGAL (such as waiting 24 hours or being forced to listen to a heartbeat). OR we could look back in disgust that an AGRICULTURAL, male-dominated committee pushed for a law exclusively on women. THAT’S disgusting. But hey, women’s rights have almost always been in the hands of men. Why should this be any different?</p>
<p>What you believe and what will actually happen are two completely different things.</p>
<p>I’ve never heard the term “pro-aborts” but I find it offensive. I do not favor abortion. What I favor is trusting that women, in consultation with their doctors, are capable of making this highly personal decision without anyone else’s input.</p>