McDonnell reverses position on ultrasound abortion bill

ringil · #1 Feb 22, '12, 6:09 pm

An interesting development to this controversy.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/...on-bill/301811

**rlg94086** · #2 Feb 22, '12, 6:19 pm

Bottom line:

"Democrats in the House [and supposed pro-life Catholics who support them] remained unappeased by McDonnell's amendment, insisting the measure now would subject women to a pointless procedure to keep them from having an abortion."

Democrats will oppose any measure that attempts to keep a woman from having an abortion.

jediliz · #3 Feb 22, '12, 10:26 pm

what?!?!?!? This is insane.....Women have ultrasounds for other reasons other than pregnancy! Are they going to claim that its "rape" for other reasons (such as cysts or fibroids)?

_Abyssinia · #4 Feb 23, '12, 1:28 am

McDonnell is making a mistake and I hope he reverses his decision:

Abortion Drug Has Killed Women Without Ultrasound Before

Planned Parenthood Already “Rapes” Women in Pre-Abortion Ultrasound

Pro-Abortion Rape Myth Debunked, 99% of Abortion Clinics Do Ultrasounds

seekerz · #5 Feb 23, '12, 3:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

McDonnell is making a mistake and I hope he reverses his decision:

Abortion Drug Has Killed Women Without Ultrasound Before

Planned Parenthood Already “Rapes” Women in Pre-Abortion Ultrasound

Pro-Abortion Rape Myth Debunked, 99% of Abortion Clinics Do Ultrasounds

He's not backing away from ultrasounds being required, just compromising on the type of ultrasound. Why is he wrong?

_Abyssinia · #6 Feb 23, '12, 3:38 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerz

He's not backing away from ultrasounds being required, just compromising on the type of ultrasound. Why is he wrong?

Because vaginal ultrasounds are often done in the abortion industry already:

Quote:

Published in the medical journal Contraception in 2003, researchers with the pro-abortion group IPAS, the University of North Carolina, a consortium of Planned Parenthood clinics and the National Abortion Federation surveyed staff at 113 Planned Parenthood affiliates and independent abortion businesses between February and April 2000.

The study specifically concerned the use of the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 (mifepristone) and the survey indicated the drug could be given to women at Planned Parenthood centers and abortion clinics because of vaginal ultrasounds.

Surveying 72 of the abortion businesses that sold the abortion pill to women, the researchers found abortion facilities frequently use vaginal ultrasounds before an abortion to determine the gestational age of the baby or afterwards to determine if the abortion was complete. In fact 99 percent of the abortion facilities surveyed always or sometimes performed an ultrasound in association with the surgical abortion — while just one percent did not.

“Vaginal ultrasound was always performed before the early surgical abortion at 59 (83%) sites, under certain conditions at 11 (16%) sites, and never at one (1%) site,” the study noted. “Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early surgical abortion at 18 (26%) sites, under certain conditions at 46 (66%) sites, and never at 6 (8%) sites.”

Similar numbers were seen regarding vaginal ultrasounds before a mifepristone abortion.

“Vaginal ultrasound was very common before the medical abortion, with 37 (92%) sites reporting that they always performed it,” the study continued. “Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early medical abortion in 35 (87%) sites, performed under certain conditions in 4 (10%) sites, and never performed in 1 (3%) site.”

The research report’s authors also noted that the frequency of the use of vaginal ultrasounds before abortion is not limited to the abortion centers surveyed, but common practice in the abortion industry.

“Almost all sites offering early medical abortion always performed a vaginal ultrasound before and after the abortion, consistent with common practice in the US,” the study said.

The study also indicated some abortion centers will not actually perform an abortion without first performing a vaginal ultrasound.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/p...o-ultrasounds/

seekerz · #7 Feb 23, '12, 3:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Because vaginal ultrasounds are often done in the abortion industry already:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/p...o-ultrasounds/

I still don't get why he's wrong in allowing it to be done abdominally. To be clear, I'm against any non-medical personal mandating any medical intervention that is not a medical necessity, but I'm just not sure what your reasoning is for disagreeing with the governor's position.

_Abyssinia · #8 Feb 23, '12, 4:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerz

I still don't get why he's wrong in allowing it to be done abdominally. To be clear, I'm against any non-medical personal mandating any medical intervention that is not a medical necessity, but I'm just not sure what your reasoning is for disagreeing with the governor's position.

The type of ultrasound that should be done is up to the person who does the abortion, not McDonnell. Sometimes a transvaginal ultrasound has to be done, sometimes an abdominal ultrasound. He should of left the bill as it was.

seekerz · #9 Feb 23, '12, 4:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

The type of ultrasound that should be done is up to the person who does the abortion, not McDonnell. Sometimes a transvaginal ultrasound has to be done, sometimes an abdominal ultrasound. He should of left the bill as it was.

I haven't read the bill, so correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the article it originally required the woman to undergo a vaginal ultrasound. I have serious problems with the concept of anyone but a person's doctor deciding what type of ultrasound they need or whether they need one at all. Every type of intervention has its uses, limitations, dos and don'ts, all of which may not be understood without appropriate training.

ringil · #10 Feb 23, '12, 7:02 am

It seemed to me that the transvaginal ultrasound was posed as a required procedure in order to coerce women from getting an abortion. I believe this is not the right route to take in Pro-Life arena. It is a rather base method of meeting the grace social illness of abortion.

scipio337 · #11 Feb 23, '12, 7:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringil

It seemed to me that the transvaginal ultrasound was posed as a required procedure in order to coerce women from getting an abortion. I believe this is not the right route to take in Pro-Life arena. It is a rather base method of meeting the grace social illness of abortion.

The trans vaginal ultrasound is a red herring, that "may" have been required for some pregnancies. There was no mandated transvaginal ultrasound.

The fact that the abortion itself is much more invasive than the ultrasound, and the fact that most are still opposed to the bill, despite the changes, only show that the outrage over the transvaginal ultrasounds was feigned.

seekerz · #12 Feb 23, '12, 10:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by scipio337

The trans vaginal ultrasound is a red herring, that "may" have been required for some pregnancies. There was no mandated transvaginal ultrasound.

The fact that the abortion itself is much more invasive than the ultrasound, and the fact that most are still opposed to the bill, despite the changes, only show that the outrage over the transvaginal ultrasounds was feigned.

From a health care perspective, I'm not sure it is accurate to say that the outrage was feigned. There are ethical concerns with performing mandatory medical exams on a person and I don't see how it is possible to restrict these concerns only to a certain category of women, namely those seeking to abort. People vary in their attitudes to, and tolerance for examinations of an intimate nature and providers generally do not perform them unless there is full and free consent. The comparison with surgical abortion fails, since that is usually done with the help of drugs which have a sedating effect.

Roselle · #13 Feb 23, '12, 11:06 am

Law or not, recall seeing this yesterday.

"Planned Parenthood Says it Won’t Do Abortions Without Ultrasounds"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...s-ultrasounds/

**rlg94086** · #14 Feb 23, '12, 11:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by scipio337

The trans vaginal ultrasound is a red herring, that "may" have been required for some pregnancies. There was no mandated transvaginal ultrasound.

The fact that the abortion itself is much more invasive than the ultrasound, and the fact that most are still opposed to the bill, despite the changes, only show that the outrage over the transvaginal ultrasounds was feigned.

Yep. Bottom line is that Democrats (Catholics included) don't support anything that may discourage a woman from having an abortion - invasive or not. All the faux outrage about the vaginal ultrasound is just normal pro-choice politics.

seekerz · #15 Feb 23, '12, 2:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlg94086

Yep. Bottom line is that Democrats (Catholics included) don't support anything that may discourage a woman from having an abortion - invasive or not. All the faux outrage about the vaginal ultrasound is just normal pro-choice politics.

'Discourage' without invasive procedures. The only human beings who have a right to access a woman's reproductive apparatus without obtaining explicit and free consent, are the woman herself and her babies. Even when she denies her children that right, there is still no justification for stripping her of hers. To argue otherwise is to practice 'eye for eye' morality - nothing to do with politics.