It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

After Less Than A Week Of GOP Control, Kentucky Passes 20-Week Abortion Ban

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

wonder if those unltrasounds are then freely given to the women's doctor for interpretation because... many of those types of clinics aren't trained to detect anything when it comes to defects and probably wouldn't be able to determine the gestastional age. I certainly wouldn't trust them to do a transvaginal one.




posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The ultrasound techs are just as professional as the techs working in hospitals and at OB/GYN practices who do them. They know how to measure gestational age although they would not be allowed to interpret the results for defects. They can't do that anywhere else though either.

I am sure a doctor would actually have to interpret the results for defects.

ETA: From the bill:


"Qualified technician" means a medical imaging technologist as defined in KRS 311B.020 who is certified in obstetrics and gynecology by the American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography or a nurse midwife or advance practice nurse practitioner in obstetrics with certification in obstetrical ultrasonography.

edit on 8-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: windword

Why not: As you can see there doesn't seem to be any complications with the fetus and your uterus. Abortion is a viable decision, this image shows that there will be minimal risks. It is, now, your decision on how we proceed.


Complications are the doctors concern, informed consent doesn't have anything to do with complications or health issues. This ultrasound is not done for the doctor's benefit. It's strictly to make sure the woman sees and hears the heart beat of the fetus she'll abort.


I understand what you are saying. I just can't grasp why you take issue with a woman seeing and hearing the fetus she intends on aborting. Some may change their minds, but others may be even more sure that they want it removed without delay! Not all women want to be mothers and seeing the fetus will not change that.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: windword

Why not: As you can see there doesn't seem to be any complications with the fetus and your uterus. Abortion is a viable decision, this image shows that there will be minimal risks. It is, now, your decision on how we proceed.


Complications are the doctors concern, informed consent doesn't have anything to do with complications or health issues. This ultrasound is not done for the doctor's benefit. It's strictly to make sure the woman sees and hears the heart beat of the fetus she'll abort.


I understand what you are saying. I just can't grasp why you take issue with a woman seeing and hearing the fetus she intends on aborting. Some may change their minds, but others may be even more sure that they want it removed without delay! Not all women want to be mothers and seeing the fetus will not change that.


At the clinic near me, they don't even face the screen towards the patient.

ETA: Well, sh*t. This stupid bill will change that!


Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view the images.


Now, that is ridiculous and totally not medically necessary!

ETA 2: GAH! There is more BS stuffed into it, too! They have to turn the volume of the heartbeat sound up, too!

All of that has no business being made mandatory. It should be completely voluntary.

edit on 8-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: windword

Why not: As you can see there doesn't seem to be any complications with the fetus and your uterus. Abortion is a viable decision, this image shows that there will be minimal risks. It is, now, your decision on how we proceed.


Complications are the doctors concern, informed consent doesn't have anything to do with complications or health issues. This ultrasound is not done for the doctor's benefit. It's strictly to make sure the woman sees and hears the heart beat of the fetus she'll abort.


I understand what you are saying. I just can't grasp why you take issue with a woman seeing and hearing the fetus she intends on aborting. Some may change their minds, but others may be even more sure that they want it removed without delay! Not all women want to be mothers and seeing the fetus will not change that.


It should be the woman's choice to have the ultrasound. If a woman doesn't want to, she shouldn't be forced to by law.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: windword

Why not: As you can see there doesn't seem to be any complications with the fetus and your uterus. Abortion is a viable decision, this image shows that there will be minimal risks. It is, now, your decision on how we proceed.


Complications are the doctors concern, informed consent doesn't have anything to do with complications or health issues. This ultrasound is not done for the doctor's benefit. It's strictly to make sure the woman sees and hears the heart beat of the fetus she'll abort.


I understand what you are saying. I just can't grasp why you take issue with a woman seeing and hearing the fetus she intends on aborting. Some may change their minds, but others may be even more sure that they want it removed without delay! Not all women want to be mothers and seeing the fetus will not change that.


It should be the woman's choice to have the ultrasound. If a woman doesn't want to, she shouldn't be forced to by law.


To be honest, there are always loopholes in most laws. Fact is the woman will still have the choice whether to view the image and I am guessing they could wear ear plugs if they were so adamant about not wanting to hear the heartbeat. Perhaps, the pro-abortionist can hand out blinders and ear plugs to patients entering. Remind them they still have a choice?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I think it should just be voluntary to view the images or hear the heartbeat. I don't see how it's medically necessary to display the images or turn the volume up. It undermines the argument for a pre-abortion ultrasound including those things, IMO.

A simple explanation of gestational age and location of the pregnancy suffices in informing a patient.


edit on 8-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Should "fetal" pain be a issue in making a decision to terminate a pregnancy?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I think windword addressed that in the post you replied to - If fetal pain is really an issue, then fetal anesthesia could be required by law. That would resolve the fetal pain issue.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil?


I have to admit, I may have become more biased on this issue as I have aged. So many in today's society don't seem to take notice of anything without some additional sensual stimuli. Words and information is meaningless unless there is a visual or audio to connect with. May not be true for all, but certainly true for many.

I certainly know everyone has unique perspectives and they are biased based on personal experiences. I just cannot comprehend on how limiting reality allows a woman to truly make her own personal decision? What is she basing it on?

Edit add: If a woman is making this choice due to complications for her or her fetus, is she not more likely to find herself feeling less guilty hearing an erratic heartbeat or seeing the problem? If one is choosing abortion as their birth control method...would not seeing and hearing, encourage them to find another more reliable method? Personally I think if you feel shame or guilt by seeing or hearing the fetus within you, you probably should determine why you feel that way before permanently making an irreversible decision.
edit on 1 8 2017 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




www.naralva.org...

if you go to page 5 of that document, you will find that among the crisis pregnancy centers that are on the virginia's list of places that will provide you with free ultrasounds (va has a similar law) might not provide the result of that ultrasound to the person's doctor...

if you go on to page 6 and 7, you will find that at least here in va, crisis pregnancy centers are not subject to the licensure, inspection, and regulation required of medical facilities. so no, at least here in virginia, the crisis pregnancy centers don't have to provide ultrasounds that were done by qualified, train professionals.. and I don't think all of them do. so, if the state is sending them to imposter medical clinics for ultrasounds that are done by amatures, one has to debunk the idea that there is a health related concern for the law.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I was quoting the bill for Kentucky. I can't speak on other states.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I don't think it's necessary that patients be moved by seeing the ultrasound pics or hearing the heartbeat, just that they be informed. In other cases of giving informed consent, visual aids are not used to bring about a sense of 'reality' that may or may not be missing. I don't see how this issue should be treated differently.

I'm not saying women should not be allowed to view the images or hear the heartbeat if that's what they want, but I don't think it should be mandatory either. If you have earplugs in to cover up the sound of the heartbeat, then you cannot hear any other information that might be given.

Just seems an unnecessary step and an overreach, IMO.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

My experience has been that whenever a doctor suggests performing an invasive surgery, the patient / family is usually shown, X-rays, scans, etc. in order for them to sign that 'consent form' before surgery will be performed.

Personally, this law probably is to insure liability from civil lawsuits, if a woman comes back later claiming she was misinformed. GOP usually has a financial incentive behind most legislation.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I was thinking about my own experiences when I wrote that. I had an ultrasound on my liver, 10 years ago, and my doctor recommended a biopsy. I was never shown the ultrasound images....they never even offered although I am sure I could have asked to see them. In fact, the screen was turned away from me during the ultrasound.

Anyway, I think it should be totally voluntary. Most people have seen ultrasound images of fetuses at one time or another. We know what they look like. It's not informative to be made to see them before an abortion.

Agree to disagree? I still like you even if we disagree on this!




posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Trust me, I tend to agree with you on many subjects. Just because I have a different perspective bias...I know that doesn't make one of us wrong. Many subjects have no obvious right or wrong. Even knowing that, I enjoy sharing my perspective and reading others.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

This is being a bit disingenuous. I had an ovarian cancer scare. They didn't force me to look at any scans, ultrasounds or x-rays of my ovaries before my hysterectomy. I'm sure I could have if I asked, but it wasn't required.

You know as well as I do that this ultrasound law has nothing to do with liability from civil lawsuits. It is all about using guilt, shame and emotion to get the woman to change her mind about the abortion.

There is no valid medical reason for the state to require women to be forced to participate in a procedure that is medically unnecessary. The state does not need to get personally involved in trying to make the woman feel worse than she already does in making this hard decision.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



I disagree that it has "nothing" to do with women's health. There is some merit to the argument for the ultrasound and you are entirely skipping over it.


I'm not saying that ultrasounds are necessary to monitor pregnancies or serve as an aid to a doctor performing an abortion. It's just that this particular legally ordered scan isn't for the doctor's use. It's strictly for the woman to see her fetus and hear the heartbeat as a last ditch deterrent.

That's what the legislation says the ultrasound is for, informed consent, and there's nothing in the legislation that tells the Pregnancy Crisis Counseling Centers doing the ultrasounds to turn them over to the doctor who will perform the procedure.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MotherMayEye



I disagree that it has "nothing" to do with women's health. There is some merit to the argument for the ultrasound and you are entirely skipping over it.


I'm not saying that ultrasounds are necessary to monitor pregnancies or serve as an aid to a doctor performing an abortion. It's just that this particular legally ordered scan isn't for the doctor's use. It's strictly for the woman to see her fetus and hear the heartbeat as a last ditch deterrent.

That's what the legislation says the ultrasound is for, informed consent, and there's nothing in the legislation that tells the Pregnancy Crisis Counseling Centers doing the ultrasounds to turn them over to the doctor who will perform the procedure.





There is a medical argument included in the bill, but I agree that the mandatory stuff about viewing the images and hearing the heartbeat are a total overreach. It undermines the entire bill. I do not support that.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: windword

Why not: As you can see there doesn't seem to be any complications with the fetus and your uterus. Abortion is a viable decision, this image shows that there will be minimal risks. It is, now, your decision on how we proceed.


Complications are the doctors concern, informed consent doesn't have anything to do with complications or health issues. This ultrasound is not done for the doctor's benefit. It's strictly to make sure the woman sees and hears the heart beat of the fetus she'll abort.


I understand what you are saying. I just can't grasp why you take issue with a woman seeing and hearing the fetus she intends on aborting. Some may change their minds, but others may be even more sure that they want it removed without delay! Not all women want to be mothers and seeing the fetus will not change that.


It's an added expense, unless women want to do a perp walk in Louisville, at Kentucky's only abortion clinic, or get harassed by well meaning pro-life counselor trying to talk women out of their abortions. Additionally, it's another hoop that women have to jump through, costing them unnecessary time and money because the government doesn't trust them to know what they're doing.


edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join