Forced ultrasounds

[nurse2033]

Has anyone been following this? Virginia just passed a law that requires any woman who wishes an abortion must have an ultrasound (and pay for it) prior to the abortion. Since most of these are done prior to 12 weeks that means the ultrasound will most likely be lady partsl. Does any one else have a problem with this? I know that the abortion would also be lady partsl but this is an unnecessary procedure. What is the medical purpose here? Obviously none. Here's a few links covering the story. I was disappointed I couldn't find any public comments from nursing organizations.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+sum+SB484

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion_will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/virginia-gops-abortion-bill-reeks-of-hypocrisy/2012/02/07/gIQAYiU1zQ_story.html

[cstatic]

In Texas the sonogram is performed the day of the procedure and is silent and without viewing the screen unless the women wants to. It verifies gestation age as well as placement of fetus (ectopic etc) and if there is more than one. Many times a woman has not been to a doctor prior to the procedure so these things have to be determined before termination of the pregnancy. Sonogram and pain meds are part of the fee, it is a package deal.

[33762FL]

i've read there's been over 40 million abortions since roe vs wade in america alone. that's a genocide that rivals what happened to the jews during the holocaust!

this is extremely offensive and demeaning to the jewish people. the people who died in the holocaust, jews and otherwise, were mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, colleagues, teachers, doctors, etc. they had personal histories, businesses, writings, inventions, relationships, etc. i am not recommending that anybody have an abortion or taking it lightly, but please don't equate a zygote the size of a dime with a thinking, breathing, feeling, person killed in the holocaust (and the same goes for peta, don't equate chickens with holocaust victims either).

and as for contraception - it was one of the most wonderful inventions of the 20th century. the pill, iud, and other contraceptives allowed women to have careers outside the home, as they could plan and space out their pregnancies. it also allowed couples to choose the number of children they'd like to have, or if they'd like none at all. there is nothing wrong with being in a serious relationship and having sex for pleasure, as long as you use contraception consistently and take personal responsibility for it. i am married and have always used contraception, that is my husband's and my lifestyle choice that we pay for and take responsibility for.

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

And unless it has not been abundantly clear, pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. Just that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body in her circumstance. Unless you are going to take any woman's turn in repenting to her God, then stay out of her decisions.

And yes, there can be a lot of birth control that doesn't always work 100% of the time. And as so aptly put by another poster, family planning is an extremely personal choice. Let's support women whatever their circumstance that leads them to the decisons they have the right to make, or not make. It is very disrepectful to suggest abortion is akin to the Holucast. It is disturbing that so much effort is put into the judgement of other women. (Isn't that against the Bible too??? Or is that the selective following of the Word???) I often wonder if it was men who decided that no women have the right to a safe, legal abortion attitudes would change.....oh, that's right, most of the politicians who push this agenda are men.....

[cat013]

I often wonder if it was men who decided that no women have the right to a safe, legal abortion attitudes would change.....oh, that's right, most of the politicians who push this agenda are men.....

Yeah, sure. Meet Sen. Jill Vogel, undoubtedly a man in disguise. Just wonder what all these children have to do with her... sorry, HIS "informed consent" bill.

[tewdles, RN]

I previously posted, but do not find that post...

I believe that forcing a woman to receive an object into her lady parts, against her will, with no purpose other than to affect her emotionally constitutes rape. I don't care who perpetrates it...if it is nonconsensual it is a violation of that woman's body. A female senator has no more right to force this upon me than does a male...it remains unnecessary and forced. Because there is no medical necessity for this procedure it becomes forced nonconcensual sexual contact, otherwise known as rape.

The US Justice Department defines rape as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the lady parts or orifice with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim".

Sen Vogel may choose to bear as many children as she and her husband desire, it is irrelevant to this discussion. She may consent to any and all translady partsl ultrasounds that she desires, that also is irrelevant. She may NOT force other women to accept penetration of their lady parts against their will simply because her personal belief system supports or suggests it.

Peace out and flame on...

[nicurn001]

Yeah, sure. Meet Sen. Jill Vogel, undoubtedly a man in disguise. Just wonder what all these children have to do with her... sorry, HIS "informed consent" bill.

It's interesting to speculate why you had to creat a new avatar to post this contribution to this thread . I think Tewdles has given an excellent rebuttal to any justification of forced lady partsl examination

[Rose_Queen, BSN, MSN, RN]

Abortion is still a legal option for women in the United States. The person providing the procedure likely already does an ultrasound to confirm pregnancy/location/gestational age. This is nothing more than a way to either shame women into not having an abortion, or more likely a way in which they will end up using unsafe procedures- the back alley abortionist, drinking or eating something to cause a miscarriage, etc. Forcing a woman to view the ultrasound images, listen to the heartbeat, take a picture with them, and wait is nothing short of cruel coercion.

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

Some women can handle a litter, but most can't. Unwanted and uncared for children are the

bane of any society. Now, if Sen. Jill Vogel adopted 4 of the above children, I'd give her a lot of credit. Maybe the are and maybe they aren't. What are these kids going to go when they grow up. Our economy can't support the people we have now. Rats get very restless in an over-crowded cage. We're just upright rats with keys.

[cat013]

It's interesting to speculate why you had to creat a new avatar to post this contribution to this thread . I think Tewdles has given an excellent rebuttal to any justification of forced lady partsl examination

I did not create anything new, I've joined this forum 2 days ago. And no, I do not justify any kind of exam. I merely find it amusing how readily men get blamed for all the stuff women do to women.

(But if you still want to speculate - be my guest.)

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

Yeah, sure. Meet Sen. Jill Vogel, undoubtedly a man in disguise. Just wonder what all these children have to do with her... sorry, HIS "informed consent" bill.

I said MOST not all. My words were taken out of context in this instance. Jill Vogel is all for the ultrasound. (which as pointed out in an earlier post is, in my opinion, psychological warfare on women). There are many other ways to obtain informed consent. But as put before as well, should an ultrasound deter women who seek an abortion, most will find another, less safe way. Historically, men are the agenda pushers on the anti-abortion front. With all that being said, I was attempting is dispel the myth that just because one in pro-choice doesn't mean one is pro-abortion. It is a personal decision that a woman has a legal right to make. Why make it more of a difficult decision than it already is by a woman-introduced bill to add a mandatory ultrasound? Most all of the other agenda items that have to do with abolishing legal abortions have been introduced by men.

[cnmbfa]

Very tiny, very remote increase in risk, much less than the risks fo actually giving birth. The intent of this is to invade women's bodies, shame them, and drive up the cost of abortion by severl hundred $$ to push it further out of reach of poor women.

[cnmbfa]

This particular kind of US is a new practice. Why aren't we leaving it up to the doctor to decide whether a translady partsl approach is needed? This is being done simply to be invasive, to shame women, and to drive up the costs. It is cruel, humiliating, and unnecessary.