here we go again...

[redfox]

It is popular these days to strip the unborn of their humanity through language.

It seems popular among some to label a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus as a baby. In medical terms, none of these are "humanity"; labeling these developmental stages thusly is a religious stance. Since reproductive health care is medicine, not religion, the language debate is interesting, can be quite divisive and inflammatory, but is not pertinent to medicine.

I do understand that some feel an abhorrence for abortion. That is why keeping it a private medical decision is good public policy. None should be forced to either carry or terminate a pregnancy, and the literal intrusion of the state in mandating a procedure for women seeking a medical procedure is overreach, to say the very least.

[redfox]

when I was in nursing school we had a chance to work in an abortion clinic. It was a life changing experience, and I came away with a more pro-abortion stance than I had before... There is no one description of a women who gets in this situation. Some had errors of judgement, some were forced into sex, some thought it would not happen to them, there are all kinds of stories. Most had such a sadness in their hearts.

It is very demeaning to think that women are too stupid to realize what is happening. Maybe they are the smart ones instead of people who bring children into the world to teach their agenda of hate. Because what we have going on right now is an agenda of hate, humility and shaming largely by the gender who cannot get pregnant.

When I was 42, I got pregnant with my then newish BF, now DH (classic perimenopause pregnancy; day 25ish of my cycle-facepalm!), and the thought of an abortion made me physically ill. That made me more pro-choice than ever as well. I realized quite viscerally how deeply personal an experience and decision abortion is. I would have chosen abortion if the pregnancy I was carrying was a Down's syndrome child, as I knew I could not support a special needs child financially. I miscarried, and while I was sad, so too was I very very relieved. I'd have a nearly 14 year old today, OMG, and though we would have made it work, that miscarriage was a good thing for me.

The utter arrogancy, dehumanization and disrespect being enforced upon women infuriates me. I was 18 when abortion became legal and safe. My mother had a friend who died from septic infection from an illegal abortion. She was on a cruise ship, and did not know she was in danger. She died in the Bahamas, it was 1968, and her family found out about it by reading the story in the newspaper. Her body had been dumped in the ocean. I had friends who did unspeakable things with knitting needles, threw themselves downstairs and broke bones to miscarry.

I was an abortion counselor in the late 70's, assisting women to make what was for some, not all, the hardest decision they had ever made. I listened to stories of the rape of a 14 year old by a family member, and this girl did not realize she was pregnant till her second trimester. I heard a story from a Catholic mother of 5 who was desperate to not have any more children, she was so worn out. I listened to women of every circumstance and age, in mid-Missouri, and referred those who wanted an abortion to the appropriate clinic. Never once did I meet a woman who was cavelier or casual about her decision.

I am nearly 57. I will go to jail, if that is what it takes, to defend safe and legal abortion.

[creaker]

Is it true that Planned Parenthood already requires ultrasounds before they will conduct an abortion? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...s-ultrasounds/

I thought one needed to do an ultrasound to guestimate the age of the fetus, determine it's not an ectopic pregnany and rule out other issues before performing an abortion.

[Zoebird]

The issue of viability and the related abortion law is valuable to discuss.

Most states assert that abortions are OK up to X week, and after that, must be for a medical reason. This is, of course, a generalization, but that is generally how it rolls out.

The issue is largely of dating to come into compliance with this law. Planned Parenthood -- largely because it is so public about it's activities -- would want to be well above board. They would demand an ultrasound (which they can provide in office) to determine the approximate gestational age of the baby so they wouldn't come under fire (or legal problems) for simply going with the reported age of the pregnancy (by the woman).

Likewise, other doctors or organizations who provide abortions might simply follow the model of reporting rather than going with an ultrasound to determine gestational age.

But, there is a BIG difference between the typical ultrasound and the vaginal ultrasound -- which is not common practice for dating the gestation of the pregnancy.

A vaginal ultrasound is far more intrusive and may put women off (particularly victims of rape, incest, and sexual abuse) -- and if it includes "showing" them the baby, then this may be even more emotionally invasive when women are already making a difficult decision, with many other requirements such as 24-48 hr waiting periods, counseling and other requirements in the process (which are designed to prevent her from going through with the procedure).

So, why is this law important to discuss? Because the procedure is specific.

Instead of saying that ultrasound dating will be the standard method to determine if the abortion is compliant with the law, this law is stating that a particularly invasive form of ultrasound must be used in order to date the pregnancy.

And yet, for the purposes of birthing, a normal sonogram will do, apparently -- those women are not subject to vaginal ultrasound, and why would a doctor use when when a normal ultrasound will do?

A normal ultrasound -- as it is now, an abdominal ultrasound -- can provide the same dating process. Likewise, the ultrasound doesn't need to be shown to the mother at all -- if it's simply there for dating. Why would it?

It's meant, I believe, to create an attachment for the mother, but I never had one -- does that mean I lack attachment to my infant while he was in utero? Definitely not. I knew I was pregnant. I loved my little fish. But, I also wanted him. And that makes the difference -- not seeing an ultrasound of him.

[bae]

Never once did I meet a woman who was cavelier or casual about her decision.

I have met such a woman. My own sister. She and her husband were criminals, wanted in multiple states, and hit upon the scheme of "selling" babies to support themselves and assist in hiding from the law. I have more-than-a-few nieces and nephews sold this way. Whenever their plans did not work out, she aborted the child.

I don't take her actions as representative of normal humans.

I am nearly 57. I will go to jail, if that is what it takes, to defend safe and legal abortion.

Let me know when/if you need any help, or need busted out. You probably know where I live :-)

[bae]

... this law is stating that a particularly invasive form of ultrasound must be used in order to date the pregnancy.

Let's be clear. This law is the government ordering women to be raped.

[redfox]

I have met such a woman. My own sister. She and her husband were criminals, wanted in multiple states, and hit upon the scheme of "selling" babies to support themselves and assist in hiding from the law. I have more-than-a-few nieces and nephews sold this way. Whenever their plans did not work out, she aborted the child.

I don't take her actions as representative of normal humans.



Let me know when/if you need any help, or need busted out. You probably know where I live :-)

My goodness, Bae. I am so sorry to hear about your sister - wow... Definitely Not representative of normal human behavior.

And thank you. Your offer is kind, and very generous. I will let you know, but be warned: I am a hell raiser when needed!

[Zoebird]

I am hearing you, redfox. I am hearing you.

[Zoebird]

Let's be clear. This law is the government ordering women to be raped.

This is particularly inflammatory language, and the term "rape" is extreme in and of itself. I do not want to necessarily classify a particularly invasive procedure as rape because of what rape is.

That being said, since rape is about power, dehumanizing the person being raped, and violence -- this procedure qualifies for at least two of three.

And for women who are survivors of abuse (sexual or otherwise) or rape and incest, this procedure would be particularly difficult and likely cause them more trauma.

[iris lily]

This Virginia requirement is mad. I wonder how much this adds to the cost of an abortion procedure?

Edited to add:

While I see that the final Virginia bill does require an ultrasound procedure, a patient can choose to have an abdominal one. This is not the intrusive version, yes? I think that if Planned Parenthood always requires it's less outrageous than I originally thought. I would think that Planned Parenthood would be the target of outrage or at minimum some grumbling, but instead it is universally represented on this SL site as the friend and savior of women.