February 15th, 2012, 10:59 AM #1
VA House: Women seeking abortion need transvaginal ultrasounds
Va. House GOP muscles through abortion curbs
And on a 63-36 vote, the House passed a bill that requires women to have a "transvaginal ultrasound" before undergoing abortions.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
February 15th, 2012, 11:05 AM #2
seems pointless, but they are going to poke other things her hoo hoo during the abortion so I doubt one can claim shyness at the point one is about to receive an abortion.
February 15th, 2012, 11:48 AM #3
I think they should just keep aborting, and then send the fetus home with the patient in a jar of alcohol.
And I don't think an ultrasound requires any internal probes, so I think that part of the story got lost in translation."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
February 15th, 2012, 12:15 PM #4
These religious conservatives are always harping on how the woman suffers after an abortion with psychological trauma. Nothing like leaving a few images in her mind to ensure she is traumatised.“Religion: Together we can find the cure.”
February 15th, 2012, 12:50 PM #5
A transvaginal ultrasound does require insertion.
Transvaginal ultrasound: MedlinePlus Medical EncyclopediaThe timing of death, like the ending of a story, gives a changed meaning to what preceded it. -Mary Catherine Bateson-
February 15th, 2012, 01:19 PM #6
I guess what I'm saying is the mean to do an ultrasound which does not. The transvaginal is used to look for other problems.
I seriously doubt this will stand up in court, and I doubt an abortion doctor would do it.
Most of the women who get abortions are not they types who push the genetic ball forward, anyway."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
February 15th, 2012, 03:37 PM #7
I think this is also unconstitutional, as it does not meet the rational basis test as there is no compelling legitimate government interest at stake. This legislature just wants to impose more hardship on the patient to discourage abortions.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
February 15th, 2012, 03:46 PM #8
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Joplin, MO
- Blog Entries
What? No, MTA that can't be it. I'm sure that it's completely necessary, medically valid, and in the state's best interest to shove a large device up a woman's vagina.
While it sucks for everyone, I'm particularly angered over situations that may arise from this where rape is involved. Now a woman has to basically go through it all twice.Good job, friend-of-friends!
February 16th, 2012, 06:08 AM #9
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
First paragraph, sentence one: What the heck does that mean? The law specifically states that a woman seeking an abortion would be required to receive a transvaginal ultrasound. First paragraph, sentence two: Incorrect. Transvaginal ultrasounds are the only way to visualize the fetus prior to about 7-12 weeks gestation, depending on a few different factors. Transvaginal ultrasound is NOT only "used to look for other problems".
Second paragraph: It probably will not stand up in court, especially since there are no exceptions, even for women who are well past the stage of benefiting more from a transvaginal ultrasound than a simple abdominal ultrasound. However, given that the law would REQUIRE it, abortion doctors would HAVE to do it, unless they wanted to either lose their medical license or go to jail (not sure what punishment for failure to comply would be
Third paragraph: See corrections to your first and second paragraphs, then educate yourself on abortion in America. Roughly one in every three women (that's about 30%) of all American women will have an abortion by age 45. Finally, given all of the things you did not know prior to my pointing them out to you, ask yourself if you really ought to be making comments about who does or does not "push the genetic ball forward". Good grief. At least sound like you have a clue before you start suggesting that 30% of American women are unfit to breed. Right now I'm just hoping YOU haven't succeeded in convincing one of them to breed with you.
Last edited by Corrigan; February 16th, 2012 at 06:10 AM.
February 16th, 2012, 11:16 AM #10
If you look around in our prisons, welfare case loads, drug addled "parents", single mothers with offspring from multiple men, and feral children running around killing people, I think a case can be made that a high percentage of children should never have been born!
As I've said before, the democrat party aborts it's majority year after year.
And all of my kids and grand kids are doing just fine, thank you."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
February 16th, 2012, 02:46 PM #11
everyone aborts their fair share. Conservative and liberal alike have abortions at very high rates. 98% of kids diagnosed with down syndrome are sucked out into the tub by both christian and athiest alike at near the same rate.
so called Catholic families are approximately the same size as everyone else in america. So they use birth control including abortion just like the rest of us schlubs.
As much as catholics and christians protest abortion they still appear to statistically make use of such services regularly when the problem hits close to home.
February 17th, 2012, 11:05 AM #12
Dahlia Lithwick calls this law exactly what it is:This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.
What’s more, a provision of the law that has received almost no media attention would ensure that a certification by the doctor that the patient either did or didn’t “avail herself of the opportunity” to view the ultrasound or listen to the fetal heartbeat will go into the woman’s medical record. Whether she wants it there or not. I guess they were all out of scarlet letters in Richmond.
So the problem is not just that the woman and her physician (the core relationship protected in Roe) no longer matter at all in deciding whether an abortion is proper. It is that the physician is being commandeered by the state to perform a medically unnecessary procedure upon a woman, despite clear ethical directives to the contrary. (There is no evidence at all that the ultrasound is a medical necessity, and nobody attempted to defend it on those grounds.) As an editorial in the Virginian-Pilot put it recently, “Under any other circumstances, forcing an unwilling person to submit to a vaginal probing would be a violation beyond imagining. Requiring a doctor to commit such an act, especially when medically unnecessary, and to submit to an arbitrary waiting period, is to demand an abrogation of medical ethics, if not common decency.”
Evidently the right of conscience for doctors who oppose abortion are a matter of grave national concern. The ethical and professional obligations of physicians who would merely like to perform their jobs without physically violating their own patients are, however, immaterial. Don’t even bother asking whether this law would have passed had it involved physically penetrating a man instead of a woman without consent. Next month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument about the obscene government overreach that is the individual mandate in President Obama’s health care law. Yet physical intrusion by government into the vagina of a pregnant woman is so urgently needed that the woman herself should be forced to pay for the privilege.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
February 17th, 2012, 12:10 PM #13
the woman can opt out of the vaginal probing by simply not getting the abortion.
But if she opts for the Abortion then she is almost certainly going to endure vaginal probing to complete the proceedure. Inserting one more tool will not seriously reduce the intrusive nature of this proceedure.
I am all for abortion, I am against this additional medical expense, I am against forcing the woman during a traumatic time to endure more trauma by trying to change her mind with a heart beat and screen cap of her soon to be aborted fetus.
But the rape thing is a bit strong. calling this rape is like calling a woman who has sex with her husband to keep the marriage healthy rape.
the woman is already on the table legs spread wide with a speculum inserted, I don't see the addition of one more tool as being even noticed. Unless she is an old pro at this with 10 or 20 abortions under her belt.
I am not for this law but I also do not feel rape is an accurate assesment of it either.
It is an annoying regulation that wastes money and increases anxiety of the patient.
February 17th, 2012, 03:24 PM #14I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
February 17th, 2012, 03:38 PM #15
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Joplin, MO
- Blog Entries
Doctor, can you prescribe a pill?
Absolutely, right after I'm done raping you. Sorry, dear, state orders.Good job, friend-of-friends!
February 17th, 2012, 03:42 PM #16
February 17th, 2012, 06:59 PM #17
Here's the official summary of the bill:Summary as introduced:
Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman's medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed. This bill incorporates SB 279 (Smith)I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
February 17th, 2012, 10:55 PM #18
February 18th, 2012, 10:32 AM #19
February 18th, 2012, 05:30 PM #20
The Digital Cuttlefish:If a person named Virginia
Tried to stick an object in ya
In a manner you objected to, we’d have to call it rape.
When this horrid violation
Is an act of legislation,
Then not only is it legal, it’s a crime if you escape.
It’s as if the state has told you
“If you struggle, we’ll just hold you,
So you might as well surrender, though it’s all against your will
We’re not looking to dissuade you
From your choice, as we invade you;
It’s the price we pay for safety… and we’re sending you the bill.”
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Dude111 in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 44Last Post: August 25th, 2011, 06:13 PM
By shawshank62 in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 65Last Post: December 20th, 2006, 06:13 AM
By chipbgt in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 23Last Post: August 20th, 2004, 08:21 AM
By geekgrl in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 2Last Post: March 12th, 2002, 11:15 PM
By ocit in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 67Last Post: February 21st, 2002, 01:40 AM