Scary side of Virginia ultrasound law

[DarkAnts]

Hmm, all the women I saw when I sat in on termination clinic had ultrasounds before they saw the doctor. It doesn't waste that much money if one more person has a scan as they will have to have a sonographer on shift for the clinic anyway.

Those women were not required to have a vaginal ultrasound by law. They were also not required by law to look at it. There is a big difference between a clinic doing it out of practice but probably but let patients say no its not medically necessary for my visit and creating a law that requires the rape of a patient before they get a medical procedure.

[Guest Anonymous]

Poor reading comprehension, or poor reasoning skills? I can't decide.

Sure, those pesky patient consent laws just get in the way of efficiency.

My reading comprehension and reasoning skills are just fine. I even said I know what this bill is about, but let me clarify that further. I realize that bill is all about anti-choice. However, it does have some merits when it comes to ultrasounds. It just bothers me that in the U.S. any doctor should be able to perform a medical procedure without some kind of exam or medical screening. What would happen if a woman had an abortion and suffered complications due to an undiagnosed condition that could have been detected by an ultrasound or exam? Who's going to be blamed for that? I'll say it again, I know this bill is about anti-choice, that is very evident. But I also see how dangerous a medical procedure can be without having a medical exam first. I don't think it takes a medical expert to figure that out.

As far as the rectal exam thing...perhaps you missed the part where I said before prescribing ED drugs. But if they don't consent to the exam, I guess they can find non medical ways of getting it up.

[AudreyE]

A transvaginal ultrasound can be an excellent way of determining the gestational age of the pregnancy. I suspect that many doctors who perform abortion use them so they know what type of abortion is necessary and in some areas, whether the abortion is legal. The argument here imo is not whether a transvaginal u/s should be performed, but who should be deciding when it is necessary. I personally think that the doctor should be the one who determines its necessity, not some legislator who has never met the patient and barely passed freshman biology.

This is exactly my problem with it. These are some of the same people who think creationism should be taught in science class.

This entire argument boils down to: the doctor and the woman can decide on a case-by-case basis.

[Witsec1]

Geniebelle:

The idea that anyone here is for doctors performing procedures without any sort of physical exam is an idea that exists only in your tiny little brain.

I am against legislators practicing medicine. I am not against a doctor performing whatever exams are medically necessary. A doctor will take a medical history and determine what exams are necessary for a particular patient. A doctor can understand and explain the risks and benefits of exams and procedures to her patients. You ,on the other hand, think that legislators should be able to micro-manage women's health care.

A transvaginal probe is not automatically "like rape" any more than intercourse is automatically rape. The difference is consent, a principle you seem to have trouble grasping.

[ilovetchotchkes]

What? Why? We don't have to have smears before pill prescription here. We don't even start screening until 25.

At my medical school we are required to do some vaginal examinations on women under anaesthetic but we have to personally ask their permission and get their consent in writing before we do so. That practice should be on its way out.

I asked my midwives about this and they were horrified, they said that for their education (or at least the one I spoke to) they actually had a woman hired TO GET PAP SMEARS and vaginal exams over and over. Apparently she got paid BANK, like $60,000 a year to do this.

[Witsec1]

This is exactly my problem with it. These are some of the same people who think creationism should be taught in science class.

This entire argument boils down to: the doctor and the woman can decide on a case-by-case basis.

:clap:

[Witsec1]

Also keep in mind that these are the people who think that Michelle Obama's advocacy for healthier school lunches is the moral equivalent of a boot stomping on a human face, forever. They don't give a shit about anyone else's health.

[kpmom]

My reading comprehension and reasoning skills are just fine. I even said I know what this bill is about, but let me clarify that further. I realize that bill is all about anti-choice. However, it does have some merits when it comes to ultrasounds. It just bothers me that in the U.S. any doctor should be able to perform a medical procedure without some kind of exam or medical screening. What would happen if a woman had an abortion and suffered complications due to an undiagnosed condition that could have been detected by an ultrasound or exam? Who's going to be blamed for that? I'll say it again, I know this bill is about anti-choice, that is very evident. But I also see how dangerous a medical procedure can be without having a medical exam first. I don't think it takes a medical expert to figure that out.

As far as the rectal exam thing...perhaps you missed the part where I said before prescribing ED drugs. But if they don't consent to the exam, I guess they can find non medical ways of getting it up.

Your concern is doctors (a few? some? all?) are performing abortions w/o doing exams or medical screenings. And you honestly believe this u/s law is the best way to get them to do these screenings (if indeed they are not being done)? Seriously?

[Guest Anonymous]

Geniebelle:

The idea that anyone here is for doctors performing procedures without any sort of physical exam is an idea that exists only in your tiny little brain.

I am against legislators practicing medicine. I am not against a doctor performing whatever exams are medically necessary. A doctor will take a medical history and determine what exams are necessary for a particular patient. A doctor can understand and explain the risks and benefits of exams and procedures to her patients. You ,on the other hand, think that legislators should be able to micro-manage women's health care.

A transvaginal probe is not automatically "like rape" any more than intercourse is automatically rape. The difference is consent, a principle you seem to have trouble grasping.

First you say you are against doctors performing procedures without a medical exam. Then you bring up consent. So you think a woman should have an abortion (a medical procedure) without a medical exam first (which an ultrasound is regardless of where it's put)? You are contradicting yourself and maybe need to measure the size of your own brain. Oh,and by the way insurance companies and legislators already micro-manage patient care.

[Guest Anonymous]

Your concern is doctors (a few? some? all?) are performing abortions w/o doing exams or medical screenings. And you honestly believe this u/s law is the best way to get them to do these screenings (if indeed they are not being done)? Seriously?

I never said it was the best way. I'm only pointing out why the screenings are a good thing.

[valsa]

I never said it was the best way. I'm only pointing out why the screenings are a good thing.

Okay, very simple question-

Do you think the need for an exam or a screening should be determined by medical professionals or politicians?

[Witsec1]

First you say you are against doctors performing procedures without a medical exam. Then you bring up consent. So you think a woman should have an abortion (a medical procedure) without a medical exam first (which an ultrasound is regardless of where it's put)? You are contradicting yourself and maybe need to measure the size of your own brain. Oh,and by the way insurance companies and legislators already micro-manage patient care.

Huh? I can't figure out where you are getting any of this from what I wrote, so I don't know how to respond. Re: your last sentence - do you have an example of a law equivalent to the VA ultrasound law, that is not related to abortion?

[emmiedahl]

Okay, very simple question-

Do you think the need for an exam or a screening should be determined by medical professionals or politicians?

Thank you. Geniebelle is acting like there is this epidemic of women harmed for lack of adequate pre-abortion screening. That just is not the case. Doctors in the US are hyper-vigilant in most cases, testing whenever there is the least suspicion of anything. We have some serious CYA medicine going on as is.

[DarkAnts]

First you say you are against doctors performing procedures without a medical exam. Then you bring up consent. So you think a woman should have an abortion (a medical procedure) without a medical exam first (which an ultrasound is regardless of where it's put)? You are contradicting yourself and maybe need to measure the size of your own brain. Oh,and by the way insurance companies and legislators already micro-manage patient care.

We are against the legislature telling us what medical screenings need to before a medical procedure is preformed . They dont have any knowledge of medical procedures. They are just trying to use legislation to push their political and religious agenda. There is a federal institution that has the knowledge to decided what screenings are necessary before a procedure is preformed. That institution is called the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The United States Department of Health and Human Services includes the FDA, CDC and the National Institute of Health. The United States Department of Health and Human Services is staffed with actual medical doctors who know what is in the best interest of the patient. They do not have any political agenda to try to in-force. The United States Department of Health and Human Services dose in fact have a list of screenings that are REQUIRED to be done before a medical procedure takes place. The United States Department of Health and Human Services in-acts laws that requires doctors to follow their standard of treatment which includes required screenings before medical procedures.

This law was not designed to in-force the United States Department of Health and Human Services requirements. The only reason Virginia is requiring a sonogram before an abortion is an attempt to guilt the patient into having the baby. They have no interest in what is in the best interest of the patient.

edited for grammer

[Guest Anonymous]

Both...there is already legislation controlling what doctors can do anyway.

[DarkAnts]

Both...there is already legislation controlling what doctors can do anyway.

Like I said in the post above, those laws were created by doctors and people with a medical background. They were NOT created by a bunch of dingbats in congress who have no clue about whats in the patients best interest. Most doctors will say that this sonogram law is NOT in the best interest of the patient. Like I said before, this law was created to try to guilt women out of having abortions. I AM AGAINST ANY LAW THAT HAS THAT KIND OF AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

[valsa]

Like I said in the post above, those laws were created by doctors and people with a medical background. They were NOT created by a bunch of dingbats in congress who have no clue about whats in the patients best interest. Most doctors will say that this sonogram law is NOT in the best interest of the patient. Like I said before, this law was created to try to guilt women out of having abortions. I AM AGAINST ANY LAW THAT HAS THAT KIND OF AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Exactly.

[browngrl]

This law is not about ultrasound or pap smears it is about taking away a woman's right to choice. These legislators casually mix up medicine and politics so that suddenly a pap smear or endovaginal ultrasound becomes a politically charged action. Neither is. A pap smear is one of the best screening methods introduced. Since regular pap smear tests have been encouraged - cervical cancer deaths have dropped dramatically. An endovaginal ultrasound offers FAR better visualization than does a pelvic ultrasound - to the point that in our centre we do an endovaginal ultrasound on every female pelvic ultrasound UNLESS there is a reason not to do so.Both tests have strong medical evidence backing their use. Properly done - both may be uncomfortable but not painful and NEVER EVER approximate an assault. I am appalled that politicians are using either as a bludgeon to take a woman's choice away from her. I think we should get back to the real problem: misogyny.

edited to correct a typo

[Guest Anonymous]

We are against the legislature telling us what medical screenings need to before a medical procedure is preformed . They dont have any knowledge of medical procedures. They are just trying to use legislation to push their political and religious agenda. There is a federal institution that has the knowledge to decided what screenings are necessary before a procedure is preformed. That institution is called the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The United States Department of Health and Human Services includes the FDA, CDC and the National Institute of Health. The United States Department of Health and Human Services is staffed with actual medical doctors who know what is in the best interest of the patient. They do not have any political agenda to try to in-force. The United States Department of Health and Human Services dose in fact have a list of screenings that are REQUIRED to be done before a medical procedure takes place. The United States Department of Health and Human Services in-acts laws that requires doctors to follow their standard of treatment which includes required screenings before medical procedures.

This law was not designed to in-force the United States Department of Health and Human Services requirements. The only reason Virginia is requiring a sonogram before an abortion is an attempt to guilt the patient into having the baby. They have no interest in what is in the best interest of the patient.

edited for grammer

And I stated at least twice said I understand the purpose of the legislation..which is anti-choice. What I'm saying is that part of this legislation has merit in that that it is irresponsible for any doctor to preform any medical procedure including an abortion without some kind of medical screening. And if that has to be regulated by legislation, then so be it. Although I don't know of any specific legislation that requires an exam before a medical procedure, I do know that doctors are being arrested left & right for prescribing narcotics and other medications without examining patients at some point (not realated I know, but somewhat relevant) . I never said there was an outbreak of patient suffering or death without a medical exam before a procedure. What I am implying is that there is the potential of death and serious harm from not having one. Furthermore, if we were talking about a medical procedures other than abortions this would be a non-issue.

At this point we are just going to have to agree to disagree, and I'm flouncing on this particular threat because further debate is pointless

[DarkAnts]

And I stated at least twice said I understand the purpose of the legislation..which is anti-choice. What I'm saying is that part of this legislation has merit in that that it is irresponsible for any doctor to preform any medical procedure including an abortion without some kind of medical screening. And if that has to be regulated by legislation, then so be it. Although I don't know of any specific legislation that requires an exam before a medical procedure, I do know that doctors are being arrested left & right for prescribing narcotics and other medications without examining patients at some point (not realated I know, but somewhat relevant) . I never said there was an outbreak of patient suffering or death without a medical exam before a procedure. What I am implying is that there is the potential of death and serious harm from not having one. Furthermore, if we were talking about a medical procedures other than abortions this would be a non-issue.

At this point we are just going to have to agree to disagree, and I'm flouncing on this particular threat because further debate is pointless

And my point is that there are ALREDY laws that REQUIRED doctors to preform these exams before an abortion. THERE IS NO NEED TO PUT THIS BILL FORWARD FOR THAT PURPOSE!

[Aurora]

This law is not about ultrasound or pap smears it is about taking away a woman's right to choice. These legislators casually mix up medicine and politics so that suddenly a pap smear or endovaginal ultrasound becomes a politically charged action. Neither is. A pap smear is one of the best screening methods introduced. Since regular pap smear tests have been encouraged - cervical cancer deaths have dropped dramatically. An endovaginal ultrasound offers FAR better visualization than does a pelvic ultrasound - to the point that in our centre we do an endovaginal ultrasound on every female pelvic ultrasound UNLESS there is a reason not to do so.Both tests have strong medical evidence backing their use. Properly done - both may be uncomfortable but not painful and NEVER EVER approximate an assault. I am appalled that politicians are using either as a bludgeon to take a woman's choice away from her. I think we should get back to the real problem: misogyny.

edited to correct a typo

I had one done a couple of years ago and don't remember it being painful at all. The hardest part was remembering to drink enough so that my bladder would be full (for the pelvic ultrasound, I think).

I really disagree with politicians trying to regulate what should be medical decisions. Absolutely this is all about misogyny. This is insulting and damaging to women. And doctors.

Are there protests starting up against this law?

[Witsec1]

Furthermore, if we were talking about a medical procedures other than abortions this would be a non-issue.

At this point we are just going to have to agree to disagree, and I'm flouncing on this particular threat because further debate is pointless

You're right on the first point above, because the VA legislature would never in a million years consider mandatory rectal exams for patients wanting a Viagra prescription - even though it is a good idea and required by insurance etc.

You're also correct on the last point. Multiple people have painstakingly explained that being against legislated mandatoryy exams does mean we are against medically necessary exams, and you have failed to get the point.

[Witsec1]

This law is not about ultrasound or pap smears it is about taking away a woman's right to choice. These legislators casually mix up medicine and politics so that suddenly a pap smear or endovaginal ultrasound becomes a politically charged action. Neither is. A pap smear is one of the best screening methods introduced. Since regular pap smear tests have been encouraged - cervical cancer deaths have dropped dramatically. An endovaginal ultrasound offers FAR better visualization than does a pelvic ultrasound - to the point that in our centre we do an endovaginal ultrasound on every female pelvic ultrasound UNLESS there is a reason not to do so.Both tests have strong medical evidence backing their use. Properly done - both may be uncomfortable but not painful and NEVER EVER approximate an assault. I am appalled that politicians are using either as a bludgeon to take a woman's choice away from her. I think we should get back to the real problem: misogyny.

edited to correct a typo

hear, hear!

[valsa]

At this point we are just going to have to agree to disagree, and I'm flouncing on this particular threat because further debate is pointless

Good, since I was about to start banging my head against a wall.

[chiccy]

This law is not about ultrasound or pap smears it is about taking away a woman's right to choice. These legislators casually mix up medicine and politics so that suddenly a pap smear or endovaginal ultrasound becomes a politically charged action. Neither is. A pap smear is one of the best screening methods introduced. Since regular pap smear tests have been encouraged - cervical cancer deaths have dropped dramatically. An endovaginal ultrasound offers FAR better visualization than does a pelvic ultrasound - to the point that in our centre we do an endovaginal ultrasound on every female pelvic ultrasound UNLESS there is a reason not to do so.Both tests have strong medical evidence backing their use. Properly done - both may be uncomfortable but not painful and NEVER EVER approximate an assault. I am appalled that politicians are using either as a bludgeon to take a woman's choice away from her. I think we should get back to the real problem: misogyny.

I don't understand what you're saying. These tests--particularly the ultrasound--*do* in fact approximate assault when they are done via coercion.

Separately, I've read a lot to indicate that the pap smear is not, in fact, such a great test. False negatives are extremely common, and if repeated too frequently it can badly damage the cervix. I'm sure it's a good and useful test in the scheme of things, but it should NOT be a prerequisite to obtain birth control. It is crazy that girls who are virgins are being forced to have Pap smears in order to get the Pill (it happened to me).