Overheard: Abortion advocate admits transvaginal ultrasounds are "a useful tool"

At RH Reality Check, uber abortion advocate Tracy Weitz defends the use of trans-vaginal ultrasounds and even praises them for allowing earlier abortions. 

Both supporters and opponents of abortion rights get another thing wrong: they misunderstand standard abortion practice. The use of trans-vaginal ultrasounds is routine among abortion providers. When I started this work three decades ago, pregnant women often had to wait until they were seven or eight weeks pregnant before providers felt comfortable performing an abortion—they needed to wait that long to confirm a pregnancy and its placement. With advances in ultrasound technology—specifically the ability to conduct trans-vaginal ultrasounds—providers can now verify an intrauterine pregnancy as early as 4 weeks. Women no longer have to wait through weeks of pregnancy symptoms and distress before having a desired abortion. Trans-vaginal ultrasound is a useful tool and shouldn't be maligned by abortion rights supporters seeking to make a quick exaggerated political point.

I'm not sure why she thinks abortion opponents misunderstand standard abortion practice.  One of the reasons for the mandatory ultrasound bills is to make sure shady abortionists aren't endangering women with substandard practices. 

The main reason she opposes mandatory ultrasound laws is she doesn't like abortionists having to do the ultrasounds themselves or having to be at the clinic when they are done. Basically, it's not preferable for circuit-riding abortionists.  Imagine the horror of an abortionist having to be at a clinic for two consecutive days! 

Let’s consider the minutiae of these laws and the significant problems they pose. To start, the policy requires that a physician perform the ultrasound at least one day in advance of the procedure and that this physician is the same physician who performs the abortion. There are several problems with this requirement. One, this type of mandate is contrary to the way health care is generally provided. The truth is that ultrasounds are routinely performed by competent non-physician staff in the abortion setting. There is no evidence that this way of providing care is unsafe or unsatisfactory.
Two, these mandates increase the costs of abortion. Requiring the physician to be present in the clinic on two consecutive days drives up the cost of abortion for the women seeking them. In most states, low-income women have to come up with between $500 and $1000 in cash to pay for an abortion.
- See more at: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/03/01/challenges-in-the-trans-vaginal-ultrasound-debate/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=challenges-in-the-trans-vaginal-ultrasound-debate#sthash.kSD0dcLE.dpuf

Let’s consider the minutiae of these laws and the significant problems they pose. To start, the policy requires that a physician perform the ultrasound at least one day in advance of the procedure and that this physician is the same physician who performs the abortion. There are several problems with this requirement. One, this type of mandate is contrary to the way health care is generally provided. The truth is that ultrasounds are routinely performed by competent non-physician staff in the abortion setting. There is no evidence that this way of providing care is unsafe or unsatisfactory.
Two, these mandates increase the costs of abortion. Requiring the physician to be present in the clinic on two consecutive days drives up the cost of abortion for the women seeking them. In most states, low-income women have to come up with between $500 and $1000 in cash to pay for an abortion.
- See more at: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/03/01/challenges-in-the-trans-vaginal-ultrasound-debate/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=challenges-in-the-trans-vaginal-ultrasound-debate#sthash.kSD0dcLE.dpuf

Let’s consider the minutiae of these laws and the significant problems they pose. To start, the policy requires that a physician perform the ultrasound at least one day in advance of the procedure and that this physician is the same physician who performs the abortion. There are several problems with this requirement. One, this type of mandate is contrary to the way health care is generally provided. The truth is that ultrasounds are routinely performed by competent non-physician staff in the abortion setting. There is no evidence that this way of providing care is unsafe or unsatisfactory.
Two, these mandates increase the costs of abortion. Requiring the physician to be present in the clinic on two consecutive days drives up the cost of abortion for the women seeking them. In most states, low-income women have to come up with between $500 and $1000 in cash to pay for an abortion.
- See more at: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/03/01/challenges-in-the-trans-vaginal-ultrasound-debate/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=challenges-in-the-trans-vaginal-ultrasound-debate#sthash.kSD0dcLE.dpuf