Ema at The Well-Timed Period is rather miffed that Michigan's pro-choice governor, Jennifer Granholm, signed legislation which will give women considering an abortion the option of viewing on ultrasound if their abortion provider performs an ultrasound.
I think part of Ema's problem with the bill is that she thinks that HB 4446 does more than it actually does. This is partially the fault of the Michigan web site she links to which doesn't differentiate between Michigan's original informed consent bill and HB 4446 (which adds unto the informed consent bill) .
Another part of her problem seems to be with the act of performing an ultrasound. She's calls performing an ultrasound a "politically-indicated test" even though the National Abortion Federation notes that for first trimester surgical abortions:
"Ultrasonography, using a consistent and published table of fetalmeasurements can be of clinical value in verifying intra-uterine pregnancy and gestational age"
and says that for second trimester abortions,
"Gestational age must be verified by ultrasonography, using a consistent and published table of fetal measurements, prior to the termination of a pregnancy clinically estimated to be more than 14 weeks LMP."
For some reason, Ema thinks that giving women the option of viewing their ultrasound (if their abortion provider happens to performs one) has the "potential to negatively impact the medical care of female patients of reproductive age."
Ema also goes on to attack Gilda Jacobs, one of the most pro-choice legislators in Michigan.
What is it that some pro-choicers fear about women having the option of viewing their ultrasound? I can't fathom how a rational pro-choice person thinks that giving women the choice of whether or not to view their ultrasound is so bad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Showing them the ultrasound might worry their pretty little heads!
ReplyDeleteWhere in my post do I say I have a problem with the Bill because it
ReplyDeletewill give women considering an abortion the option of viewing on ultrasound if their abortion provider performs an ultrasound.?
When it comes to the U/S issue, my mifftitude is based on the fact that the Bill requires physicians to offer patients unnecessary tests, tests for which the patient is financially responsible. It also misleads patients about the risks of undergoing an abortion.
Moving on, you say:
Another part of her problem seems to be with the act of performing an ultrasound. She's calls performing an ultrasound a "politically-indicated test"
Where in my post do I even discuss my position on performing an indicated U/S, let alone having a problem with it, or calling it "politically-indicated"?
Assuming ['cause I'm nice that way] I wasn't clear, one more time: big, huge difference between performing one (or two, or seven) medically indicated U/Ss [note the indications given from your quotes--verifying intra-uterine pregnancy and gestational age], and performing additional, elective scans. There's no indication for these scans and no standard of interpretation. That's not medicine; it's a political fantasy.
For some reason, Ema thinks that giving women the option of viewing their ultrasound (if their abortion provider happens to performs one) has the "potential to negatively impact the medical care of female patients of reproductive age."
I hate to repeat myself, but please show me where in my post do I indicate that giving women the option of viewing their ultrasound has a negative potential. I don't even mention the issue.
What is it that some pro-choicers fear about women having the option of viewing their ultrasound? I can't fathom how a rational pro-choice person thinks that giving women the choice of whether or not to view their ultrasound is so bad.
Granted, this is a general musing, but just in case it has anything to do with me, a couple of points.
What does being pro- or anti-choice have to do with the topic under discussion? Unless, of course, your contention is that being anti-choice automatically makes one supportive of politicians playing doctor, and 1) forcing MDs to offer [and perform] unnecessary tests on patients, and expecting the patient to pay for it, and 2) misleading pts about the risk of a medical procedure, just because the pts happen to be pregnant females? [I don't know that I agree with such a sweeping statement about anti-choicers, but, hey, your blog, you're platform.]
What's your evidence that some pro-choice people fear women having the option of viewing their ultrasound? I ask because having the option to view their U/S is the standard of care for pregnant pts, and I'm not aware of any opposition to this standard.
Ema,
ReplyDeleteThat's what the bill does so since you're against the bill, (correct?) one would tend to assume your against giving women the option of viewing their ultrasound via legislation.
HB 4446 doesn't say anything about the risks of undergoing an abortion - not one word - the previous informed consent law (which 4446 adds on to does). So are you against abortion providers telling women they can have ultrasounds if they want? The bill doesn't require abortionists to offer patients an ultrasound. Please go back to my link to the legislation and read what HB 4446 (the text will be in color) adds on to the already passed informed consent legislation.
The medical services section was also in previous legislation. It merely notes that an abortionist can notify the patient that they will be required to pay for the medical services (whatever the abortionist wants to provide) after the 24 waiting period and but not try to collect before the period is over to prevent abortionists from getting a down payment.
So your post doesn't say, "The Bill is quite clear that the patient is expected to pay for this politically-indicated test?"
The legislation doesn't require an abortionist to perform an elective ultrasound. It merely says they have to offer women the option of viewing an ultrasound if they (the abortionist) performs one. Please reread the legislation with an open mind.
I think the main problem is that you don't understand the legislation and what it does which is probably mainly the fault of the web page you linked to and a general disposition to prolife legislation.
Another problem is that the original legislation doesn't mislead patients about the risks of abortion. Cite one piece of text from the legislation that does so.
Do you actually believe that no women suffer emotional consequences after abortion? That's the part, I'm guessing you're referring to.
I recently had a discussion with multiple pro-choice individuals at Feministe, all of whom vehemently opposed hypothetical legislation that would have abortionists offer women the option of viewing their ultrasound.
She's also wrong to think that every woman is offered the chance to see her ultrasound. Most are not offered, and sometimes even when they do ask they are denied.
ReplyDelete