Ultrasound Requirements and the Battle Over Abortion
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-22/ultrasound-requirements-and-battle-over-abortion
The Virginia legislature has approved a bill requiring women to undergo an ultrasound and 24-hour waiting period before having an abortion. Virginia's governor had expressed support for the bill but appeared to back off following protests. If signed into law, clinics would be required to ask women if they wanted to see the sonogram. Seven other states have some kind of ultrasound requirement. Supporters hope seeing an image of a fetus will make women change their mind about terminating their pregnancy. Critics say it's an effort to shame and harass women who have a legal right to an abortion. Ultrasounds and the abortion battle.
Guests
Carol Tobias
president, National Right to Life Committee.
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
Nancy Keenan
president of NARAL, Pro-Choice America.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Investigate Casey Mattox of D.C.'s Allied Defense Fund and how D.C. right wing lobbyists are playing on the ground in Casey's Home region of NE Alabama and State Senator Shadrack McGill.
Giberson and Stephens The Anointed, Harvard's Jill Lepore and Columbia's Randall Balmer, have the goods on Karl Rove's orchestration of this matter.
I hope whoever your gusests are tomorrow are educated with the insights of the Anointed, Lepore and Balmer.
Am looking forward to the show
Personally I don't care about the abortion issue, everyone should be free to call the shots on this in their own lives. Absolutely should no one be forced to pay for abortions for someone else through taxes. The thinking here is pro life proponents believe it's murder and want people to see exactly what their doing when they choose to destroy the developing fetus. I don't think it's that unreasonable and logic says it could very well change minds. Seems to me the radical left (is there any other kind) wants it all, forcing everyone to pay for every form of abortion, chemical or otherwise. They seem unwilling to accept the slightest restraint with their self serving crusades to destroy all opposition.thx
My own religion does not encourage but allows abortion. I am against every recent military action we've been in. I'm against the murder of innocent civilians. No one seems to care that my taxes pay for those murders. Yet I pay much more in taxes to support the military than anyone pays for abortions in their taxes, which probably can't even be broken down into any sort of recognizable number. That argument just doesn't fly -- unless it applies to all citizens and their moral restrictions. I'd be happy to stop paying military taxes so I can donate it to women's health organizations.
Bill H. on February 21, 2012 @ 6:18 pm wrote: “The thinking here is pro life proponents believe it's murder and want people to see exactly what their doing when they choose to destroy the developing fetus. I don't think it's that unreasonable and logic says it could very well change minds.”
Baloney. The “logic” here is to make abortion as difficult, expensive, and intrusive as possible, in the hopes of discouraging it.
Are you prepared to allow similar government tyranny for all other medical procedures? Say, before you go to have your tubes tied, or to have your “equipment enhanced” (ahem), you will be forced to have a camera tube shoved up the organ in question so that you can see exactly what’s going to happen?
I bet if a law like that was proposed you’d scream loud and long. (In fact, a similar provision affecting men was introduced in the Virginia legislature. It wasn’t even given the courtesy of a first reading!)
Just because one group of people believe (primarily if not exclusively) for religious reasons that something is wrong, does not give them the right to interfere with the decisions of those who don’t share that belief!
However, I'm gratified to see Republi-Cons declaring themselves champions of religious liberty, and ready to fight laws that infringe on people's religious beliefs.
Perhaps they can start by repealing all those bans or limitations on abortion, or those bans on gay marriage!
There are citizens in this country who struggle to survive day to day. Instead of finding ways to help the less fortunate we have religious organizations pushing their beliefs on all of us. They want to eliminate all forms of contraception from women and at the same time make it humiliating to get an abortion. Then when a poor child has a poor child they disappear. "It's not our responsibility to help. They are a drain on society!" That is their response when it comes to budgetary matters. If churches put as much effort into helping people as they do trying to control people I could respect them again.
I am a man who considers himself "pro-matriarchy" - meaning I think it is time the female sex had majority rule in this country. One reason is for the sake of better family planning. Studies show that when women are able to make good livings and implicitly determine their own fate, family size generally decreases, as do accidental pregnancies. Moreso, however, we really need to imagine how dialogues regarding birth control and abortion would be different if women were the more prominent side of the discussion in social, economic, and political arenas.
It may seem like a waste of time to some people, but that's fine with me. Then they have the potential to know how I feel about the birth control and abortion discussion as it currently stands. :)
This matter starkly illustrates the utter hypocrisy of conservative rhetoric. Republican politicians jostle with each other to claim who is the most “conservative” and claim that “liberals” generate “big government” and only their leadership will eliminate “job-killing regulations” – until they encounter any human behavior that offends their sensibilities.
Considering this from a “free-market” perspective, the government should have no place insisting that women undergo invasive testing before undergoing a legal medical procedure. Those who frame this as an issue of religious conscience likewise suppose that their religion demands coercing others to conform to their beliefs.
These laws do nothing to save innocent life or protect women’s health: this is another obnoxious instance of religious zealots and their allies attempting to control sexual behavior by making its predictable consequences or outcomes more difficult and expensive to remedy. Many of those who will support this legislation will also favor telling adults whom we can and cannot legally marry. Their aim is to effectively prohibit nonprocreative sex: the “right to life” is a red herring.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I believe the phrase “right to life” is a vicious lie when applied to only a single species – Homo sapiens – at the gestational stage, from conception to birth. How many “right-to-lifers” are also principled environmentalists? What has the National Right to Life Committee done to oppose mountaintop removal, for instance? Aren’t regions and ecosystems alive? Unchecked human population growth has brought us incalculable degradation along with unimaginable destruction and anti-abortionists are the cause of untold human misery, so they should be ashamed of themselves. That they are not evinces a lack of conscience contradicting the notion that they are opposed to the destruction of innocent life.
I'm unimpressed by any claims to "a woman's legal right to abortion," or imputing infallibility to the Supreme Court. Ask Dred Scott about the history of legal "rights," the Supreme Court's decision-making, and the Constitution itself...
A couple of generations ago, violent medical procedures were performed on human beings with the full sanction and blessing of the State. The perpetrators told themselves that these were experiments designed to advance science. In the United States in 2012, there isn't even that excuse.
I agree with the women-centered arguments that the ultrasound requirements are harassment and an instrumental obstacle to impede and/or shame women from pursuing abortions. However, where is the outrage over frivolous medical testing at a time when we know that the health care system needs overhauling and costs are skyrocketing. I know that the healthcare issues aren't simple or unicausal, but the flagrant misuse of testing and medical procedures -- if must infuriate family planning medical providers.
This is an aside, why a vaginal ultrasound? Why the rape-y, invasive quality when an abdominal ultrasound is standard in most cases.
Thank you to all of our family planning medical professionals out there! Hang in there during these crazy times.
I was listening to another local show on this issue yesterday, and a lot of people were being 'offended' about the protesters calling this 'rape by elected officials', and complaining of the decision of FBI definition of rape. Well, it is necessary to prevent people like priests from thinking they are blessing people if they use a cross instead of a body part. Also, soldiers, sailors, coast guard, marines, air force, are subject to torture, i.e. rape with a object when they are taken captive. Same applies to press. But to be taken hostage by your 'Priviledged Christian Overlords' and 'blessed to be penetrated' , why one should just tell the truth as they want to hear it. "Thank you, Master. Oh, Thank you, Master." And of course, if they cried out "Stop. Stop." Why of course, your Old Master class, would just think: They really mean, "Don't Stop"
Are the proponents for an ultrasound requirement considering how this procedure is paid for? Isn't this adding to the costs of health care? Many women don't have insurance.
Women should be the only people allowed to have a say on this issue as well as the issue of contraceptive medications.
Male elected officials as well as male voters should not be allowed to discuss this let alone have a vote on such legislation.
If a person's religion does not allow them to use contraceptives or have an abortion they should certainly not have or use them.
There should not be laws requiring everyone to follow the religious beliefs of others.
PLEASE somebody say what this really is. A mandatory VAGINAL ultrasound which is state-sponsored rape!
Also, look here for some of the politics going on behind this bill. Yes politics.
http://ffrf.org/news/action/an-unholy-alliance-kathy-byron-the-falwell-e...
I am tired of people justifying this with medicospeak instead of admitting what they are doing, shaming women and putting up additional financial barriers.
It is NOT about informed decision, at ALL. And they know that but they have their talking points.
This is another example of the war on women.
Diane:
I am involved in clinical research and bioethics. In most cases multi-procedures that are standalone ( each procedure), a separate form and informed consent is required. The "bundling" of procedures is anathema to medical best practices and patient or research subject informed consent. To "bundle" the ultrasound as a part of a therapeutic abortion (TAB), is either actual or close to actual medical malpractice based on what we would call "psychological malpractice".
Kate
I am still not clear on whether a transvaginal ultrasound is currently routinely required before an abortion is performed. The Right-to-Life participant is claiming it is, but I'm wondering whether the usual procedure is a conventional, non-invasive ultrasound.
If this procedure is already being done 83% of the time why is a law required? Are you suggesting that non-medically trained lawmakers are needed to make this decision for the remaining 17%?
I'm bewildered - if 99% of abortion providers already include ultrasound as part of their procedure either "always" or "most of the time," why in the world is it necessary to legislate it? What "problem" is the legislation correcting, and why are taxpayer funds being wasted on a complete non-issue?
Obvious question to NRC woman---if they are already being done, then why mandate?
In Oklahoma, in addition to a screen, which the woman can only avoid by closing her eyes, the doctor is mandated to describe the fetus in detail.
Any medical procedure mandated by the state is abominable.
In Oklahoma seven laws related to abortion were passed in 2010 and three in 2011. This is indeed a war against women
It confuses me terribly to listen to those on the right who don't want government telling them what to do with their personal health care and turn right around and want to tell a woman how she should care for herself.
This is an extreme double standard. Also, my next quandry is who is to pay for these procedures, is it the tax payer?
I have experienced an abortion through Planned Parenthood about 8 years ago. I was given an ultrasound during the process/appointment. However, the ultrasound was given after taking a medication that I was told would harm the fetus if I chose to not go through with the abortion. This caused great conflict emotionally, due to not being told that I would see the ultrasound. So, the order was, admitted, take the medication, wait, then ultrasound, then speaking with the nurse to be sure no one was forcing me to go through with this procedure. My suggestion, have a counseling session prior to the day of the abortion or prior to being given the medication.
Please know that I was one of the beginning proponents of choice for women. I am the parent of 5 children ....and would never have an abortion... but If you want one you should be able to have one. This is a guilt trip hoping to keep us "in our place" I sat in shopping malls in the early 1970s to obtain signatures to get this on the ballot. We were successful. Now please leave us alone!!!
I am now 75 years old and am so tired of politicians telling us we are stupid....mostly male politicians. They know nothing about our bodies except how to get us to serve them!
Thank you, Diane for your successful opportunity to allow us to have knowledge.
Your photo of a woman lying fully dressed with a man doing a typical EXTERNAL ultrasound is NOT what this is about.
The bill calls for a TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUND: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003779.htm
Transvaginal means through the vagina.
Both Reverend Al and Chris Matthews could not come to terms with using the term TRANS-VAGINAL ULTRASOUND... They kept calling it Ultra-Sound Laws...
Maybe they think they are being polite. or maybe they think the phrase/image is too graphic... so I post it again!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002336670
If the thrust of the Affordable Care Act is to reduce and/or eliminate unnecessary medical procedures, than who pays for this unnecessary and unwanted ultrasound?
The woman who is your guest arguing for using ultrasound and the probe has points that I can respect even though I don't agree with her. HOWEVER, where she has my heart rate up and upset is the language she's using of "baby" "the child", call it the clinical term it is as it is not those terms within the first term especially. It is a FETUS.
The ultrasound is a very good thing! It has to do with providing the woman with COMPLETE information prior to an abortion. What possible danger can more information be? What possible reason can anyone give for denying this information? To eliminate or deny the untrasound would be to keep the woman in the dark about what is actually happening. I can well imagine that the abortion industry does not want these ultrasounds to be mandated because more information may help women to decide not to kill their babies. The abortion industry has thrived on keeping information from women and on providing misinformation to women. Give women ALL the information.
If these types of laws are not an attack on womens' reproductive rights, then where are the corresponding laws for the fathers? It takes both sexes to have a baby, and any father can be identified with DNA tests. Are the fathers required to view the ultrasounds? If they were, I am certain there would be far fewer legislatures approving such laws. Does anyone believe there is a single congress in the U.S. that doesn't have at least a few male representatives at least half responsible for an abortion? Also, is there a single state which requires a rapist to provide child support if the victim decides to go through with a pregnancy that results from a rape? My point, again, is that there are no corresponding laws for the fathers who helped created these fetuses.
If the ultrasounds are already being performed by Planned Parenthood prior to an abortion procedure as a medical necessity, as Carol Tobias says, why the need for it to be legislated by the politicians there in Virginia? Are they medical doctors?
I had an ultrasound a few weeks after conception, because as a woman who chose to become a mother later in life, so that I could provide security for my family, I was considered a risky case. You don't see any arms, legs or head, as Tobias asserts. I'm tired of this mystification of the fetus. Pregnancy and motherhood is fabulous for those who choose it, but if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, that's her choice.
If the goal is to provide informed consent within the scope of Casey, why not expand the information provided to include the actuarial charts for women having a child at her age and life situation. For example, a single mother at 16 who foregoes high school graduation, could be looking at a lifetime loss of earnings of, say, $500,000, including some of the more grinding effects of poverty and lower chances that the child will thrive. It's only a prediction, of course, it makes as much sense as a state-mandated battery.