The backlash against the new Virginia legislation requiring ultrasounds before an abortion procedure – which some have bizarrely compared to “forcible rape” – may be even more overblown than initially thought. Apparently, ultrasounds are already part of the abortion procedures at Virginia Planned Parenthoods.
The Virginia League for Planned Parenthood didn’t immediately return calls yesterday. But here’s what it said on the recording for its abortion services information hotline:
“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.
Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”
From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying.
In other words, the real reason pro-choicers oppose the law isn’t because of the “invasiveness” or “creepiness” of ultrasounds. It can’t be it. Virginia Planned Parenthood clinics already include them in its abortion procedures.
And let’s be honest. The main reason pro-lifers support the Virginia ultrasound bill isn’t out of medical necessity — not if these scans are already standard operating procedure at clinics.
This fight, like virtually all abortion law fights, is about how much of a role religion and morality should play in regulating these procedures. Pro-choice activists seem to have no problem with ultrasounds, as long as they’re done for medical reasons. But the fact that ultrasounds tend to already be part of abortions isn’t enough for pro-life activists. They want the main purpose for the scans to be promoting the “culture of life.” The Virginia law would mandate doctors to display and describe the ultrasound to the patient. And the image could end up dissuading many women from going ahead with the abortion.
While the pro-lifers have been pretty open about their motives, the pro-choicers – whose motto used to be “safe, legal and rare” – haven’t been. If they want to oppose the bill in order to keep morality out of abortion laws, that’s fine. But the rape comparisons are fundamentally dishonest and insult the intelligence of the public they’re trying to win over.
I hope you have a recording of that message on the hotline, it's about to be erased!
The key question to ask here, is what kind of ultrasound is PP doing? Is it transabdominal or transvaginal? Transabdominal is much less invasive than transvaginal.
I say again — they damn well be doing whatever one is necessary to see the fetus or they stand a damn good chance of putting women into bodybags. n nYou start jabbing a sharp object into a woman without knowing what you are trying to cut and you stand a good chance of scarring her for life if not killing her outright. n nAnd you do know why the second ultrasound is necessary after the medical abortion don;t you? If the dead fetus is still attached to her, the dead tissue will kill HER too. Can we say Gangrene? n nAre we or are we not concerned about women's health here?
I am willing to be wrong on this, but looking at the PP website, it says "A pregnant woman may choose to have tests during pregnancy to check if the fetus is developing normally. Some common tests include Ultrasound." nit says "MAY CHOOSE." if it is a matter of choice, it is not the same as this potential law. n
The bill says that "The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community…" According to the Mayo Clinic, "Transvaginal ultrasounds are used most often during early pregnancy, when the uterus and fallopian tubes are closer to the vagina than to the abdominal surface." Therefore, it is very possible to conclude that the "standard medical practice" in many communities is to do a transvaginal ultrasound, and therefore many women would be subjected to it.
The standard medical practice is spelled out in major national guidelines (American and British). It is not routine to require ultrasound, and where it's used, it's for ascertainment of fetal age. The Virginia law specifies that the ultrasound must ascertain a variety of pieces of information about the fetus (fingers and toes, as it terms "members"; condition of the internal organs of the fetus) that generally would require transvaginal ultrasound early in pregnancy, but none of this info is medically relevant or recommended for care where the plan is abortion. Just to quote the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology "Use of routine pre-abortion ultrasound scanning is unnecessary". The American equivalent suggests that where physical exam and history are not sufficient to guess gestational age, then ultrasound might be appropriate, but for "gestational age" the image need not be as detailed as that which is generally sought with transvaginal ultrasound. To get the "crown-to-rump" length of a fetus, a standard abdominal ultrasound will do just fine.
Is this article saying it is okay for a husband to force his wife to have sex because he is already sleeping with her on a regular basis.
I am waiting for the husband to force his wife to have an abortion AGAINST HER WILL — that is why I posted the Mary Moe case above – that was the woman's parents trying to (a) force her to have an abortion and (b) be sterilized — against her will. n
The detailed information specified by the VA law (count of fingers and toes "members"; assessment of all internal organs of the fetus) is going to require transvaginal ultrasound early in a pregnancy, such as the period when most women seeking abortion would present for care. That information is not readily seen on a trans-abdominal ultrasound conducted at 7-10 weeks' gestation. None of it is required for safe conduct of an abortion. It's the kind of information that physicians and families expect to hear at the typical ultrasound conducted considerably later in pregnancy for a pregnancy that is to be carried to term.
The article is somewhat misleading. The law would not “mandate doctors to display and describe” the images unless the woman requests to see them. What would be mandated is the offer to show the images to her u2013 images that, in a PP clinic, would have been made regardless. Only after her stated wish to see them would the doctor then be mandated to comply.r nr nFrom the bill:r n5. An offer to review the printed materials described in subsection D E. If the woman chooses to review such materials, they shall be provided to her in a respectful and understandable manner, without prejudice and intended to give the woman the opportunity to make an informed choice and shall be provided to her at least 24 hours before the abortion or mailed to her at least 72 hours before the abortion by first-class mail or, if the woman requests, by certified mail, restricted delivery
I'd like to thank JaneCagney for providing the crucial information missing from this article: that the level of detail required by the law pretty much requires the transvaginal ultrasound, and showing that, when needed, the abdominal ultrasound is all that is needed for abortion proceedings. r nr nI'm curious as to why the author of the article did not mention this (which would be sloppy), or, hid this (which would be dishonest), or simply didn't bother to learn about this (which would be such rank incompetence that it should be humiliating – but apparently rarely is). None of these possibilities reflects well. r nr nIt's interesting how many trackbacks have appeared by people who apparently have similar standards of professionalism.
Because I like candy, its obvious to goodman that the government should force a tootsie roll down my throat at its will.
Liz, it appears that Planned Parenthood is "taking away a women's right to consent to a medical procedure" as well. This was a priceless catch on the part of Ms. Goodman — and I bet you will find the same thing listed in their literature which you can probably find at the local women's center. n nIronic that both Global Warming and Planned Parenthood shown to be liars on the same day…
You are likely wrong on both counts. Reading this I do not see how "Planned Parenthood" was found to be a liar. I don't see Planned Parenthood quoted in this article or in the comments. Please specify. The second part of my comment is too long – so splitting into two comments. n
Now on to Climate Change – something I do know about. I have a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from MIT. The Chemical Engineering Building (building 66) is right next to the earth sciences building (building 54). So I talked to those guys regularly and attended some of their lecture. I now live in San Diego – home of the world famous Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Both these organizations are leading researchers in Climate Change. As someone with a Ph.D. I know how to read research articles. I also know the rigourous scrutiny articles in peer reviewed journals go through. [Gee still too long - OK - splitting again]. n
last part of my comment – hope they appear in the correct order n IN ADDITION – I also know that nowhere in the world is the scientific reality of climate change questioned – other than in America's rightwing so-called think tanks (really political strategists). I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion – but not their own "facts." My opinion is that jeapordizing the world's environment (and hence economy – health of the entir population) for political gains is the height of immorality. Just because a minor fact or two is wrong in a UN report does NOT makes decades of research by the worlds climate researchers wrong. But, I am sure if you thought about that for a moment – and were more worried about what is correct factually than trying to make some political point (with a nice little sound bite) you'd realize that for yourself.