Philadelphia Nesties
ooodsie
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Virgina - Ultrasound before an abortion law
Discuss!
.. My thoughts? Yes, it is a violation of a woman's rights, I don't argue with that point. However, I do think it would decrease the amount of abortions that take place. I would bet a lot of women think at 6 or 8 weeks that a baby is just a clump of cells, and seeing that image on an ultrasound, (especially seeing a beating heart) could make someone think twice.
Not saying I am for it, by any means.. but I think the concept is interesting.
Re: Virgina - Ultrasound before an abortion law
Did I miss the reason for mandatory ultrasounds? The only thing I saw (and admittedly I read through it quickly) was to provide 'more information' whatever that means.
I guess if they have to check that an abortion isn't too late term it might make sense to do an ultrasound? Otherwise this sounds singularly fecked up to me. For everyone, but especially women who have already been subjected to rape - I wonder if they would be exempt?
It sounds too awful to be true.
Aside from the fact that this is just plain horrifying, I have to wonder. Who is funding these ultrasounds? This is inherently unconstitutional so I really am astounded that this will be passed.
Andplusalso, this jackass governor wants to be VP, thereby (hopefully) paving a path to the presidency? Bananas.
Also I want to clarify that oodsie opinion irked me because she saw it as a violation but gee whiz won't that work to get women to be hormonely attached by seeing something they choose they did not want and decrease abortions is insane.
Coming our and saying you believe "life" is from conception actually irks me less.
I cannot be more outraged by this law. This is such an egregious violation of a woman's body without her consent it makes me sick.
This is not just a mandatory regular ultrasound. It's a mandated internal transvaginal ultrasound. It's not medically necessary to date a pregnancy and it's not necessary in order to provide an abortion. There is no option to consent to this procedure - you cannot say no to having this probe put into your vagina.
So basically the state of Virginia is mandating that doctors unnecessarily put an object into a woman's vagina without her consent for an unnecessary reason. I can think of a different word for that.
As far as funding, it is not a taxpayer funded proposition as taxpayer funds cannot be used for abortion services. The cost will be absorbed by the dr's offices and by the women seeking abortions. That's the point - it makes abortion hard to get and more expensive to provide.
The point of this is to further restrict abortion and strip away rights that are legally available to women. And it's not been shown that ultrasounds actually decrease the incidence of abortions. It's insulting to women to assume they don't know what they're doing when they go to an abortion doctor to get an abortion. What do you believe they think they're going there for? A pedicure?
A woman who is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant or have a child is going to find a way to not do so. It's been this way since the beginning of time.
You know what does reduce abortions? Access to contraception and education on how to use it. Which is another topic...
Yes, this dude is considered at the top of the list of potential VP candidates.
He has committed to signing this law into place.
There's also a fetal personhood law being worked on in the VA legislature that he is considering signing if it passed as well.
I want to make out with LD and lachute right now.
That is all.
Couldn't agree with this more.
It just seems so horrifying. If an ultrasound isn't medically necessary for dating then what could they possibly be using as the justification for this type of violation?
It really does defy belief.
This is what gets me. My doctor said the only routine ultrasound is the 20-week anatomy scan. So have an internal ultrasound just to say "see! told you there was a BABY in there!" just screams guilt trip. Women who decide to get abortions are doing so under a great deal of stress to start out. They don't need this too.
Aside from the total...stomach turning-ness of requiring a woman to have the transvaginal ultrasound, what this is really about is finding ways to make abortion more and more inaccessible without actually turning over Roe v. Wade. It's also a personhood bill, which is awful and has implications for birth control, IVF, etc. A similar bill was overturned in Mississippi, but it's clear there are awful things happening in the country that truly have nothing to with the desire to protect women or their rights.
And yes, you do need to be able to date a pregnancy, as there are restrictions on what type of procedure you can have based on how far you are along.
blarg.
This.
Scary times to be a woman these days.
And with Ruth Bader Ginsburg set to retire soon I have cause to worry even more about the path these types of proposed legislation will take in the future.
Ooosie your comment about, "but, yippee! it may help to change their about getting the abortion" also rubbed me the wrong way. I have to assume it's a hard journey to get to the point where you're on that table and no one, individuals, politicians, medical professionals, state or federal legislature, should have a role in trying to sway you otherwise once in a very vulnerable, emotional situation.
I read about this bill a year ago and I can't remember the exact language but the intent was not dating the pregnancy but giving the woman one last chance to make her decision. Despicable.
It's legal sodomy/rape. That's the bottom line. They are forcing vaginal ultrasounds with the hope that the woman would fell a connection with the fetus. I don't think that abortion decisions should be made lightly, but I also don't think the majority of people do that, and the people that do are not going to be swayed by seeing, what to them will be a blinking thing on a screen.
Any law that's about requiring the woman to see the ultrasound, making them see it 24 hours before the procedure, etc. is about trying to change a woman's mind. It is disrespectful to the process of making a choice that woman has already gone through. Like LD said, it's not like it's going in for a pedicure.
It assumes a woman is not mature enough (or whatever) to make the decision without someone else intervening. It ignores the fact that at Planned Parenthood and other private clinics, women are counseled on their options as well as what happens during the procedure.
Like I said, I completely think it's wrong and a violation. I just think the idea of it is an interesting concept. Mainly because my close friend in high school had an abortion at about 8 weeks. 10 years later when she had her first child, she broke down at her 8 week ultrasound when she realized what a fetus at 8 weeks looks like. She even said to me that if she had seen then what she just had saw, she never could have gone through with it - and actually wished she would have realized it at the time.
So because of that, I think the concept is interesting. That's all, just interesting - not something that I think she be put into action though. It's definitely a violation and 100% wrong.
And the government needs to get on board with providing birth control more readily available to the general public and they would not even have to come up with crazy laws like this to begin with. That's the more important first step.
thanks for finding the words that I couldn't.
I don't know how to say this without being insensitive but I'm going to try.
IMO, seeing what's on a u/s screen doesn't change the situations or circumstances that brought the woman to conclude that she wanted/needed an abortion in the first place.
It's so different to voluntarily and excitedly see a wanted, planned pregnancy on an ultrasound when you're ready and willing to have a child under good conditions then it is to be forced to look at a u/s of an unplanned pregnancy that is something you've already concluded that you are not ready for, cannot handle, or just do not want.
They say hindsight is always 20/20 but how does a grown woman now know what her 17 year old self would have done if she had to look at the screen. Would that have changed her situation that brought her to consider abortion her best option? She now has the benefit of hindsight and is looking through the lens of seeing and having a wanted pregnancy.
Good point.
I couldn't agree more with LD. Also, oodsie, they already provide ultrasounds before the procedure so this is NOT a new concept and/or idea. The only difference is now forcing women to have a transvaginal ultrasound which is extremely invasive and completely unnecessary.
In addition, I am sure a woman's mind is already made up when she chooses to have an abortion and highly doubt that someone viewing the ultrasound is going to do anything different than throw salt in the wound. This theory is just based on attempting to shame this woman from the old men who do not support abortion.
Oh also, you really can't base your opinion on some 'friend' from 10 years ago that now regrets the decision, that's ridiculous and completely agree with LD what hindsight is always 20/20.Ok, stepping off my soapbox.
The article posted said research shows no drop in going through with the abortion after having an ultrasound prior to their appointment. So, yes, the only motivation seems to be shame.
Well we are such delicate flowers that need guidance and a man to tell us what to do.
Definitely did not know that - I thought they only confirmed the pregnancy with a urine test/blood test and that's why this was all new.