A Trial in Philadelphia

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Even an EPT box tells you to go to an OB/GYN or consult with your doctor to confirm your pregnancy, for pity's sake. A standard aspect of that exam is an ultrasound. It is neither excessive, unnecessary, nor emotionally abusive.

It's NOT a standard aspect for anyone I've known (and certainly not at one of our best fertility clinics, where I attended). The standard means to confirm a pregnancy following a + HPT is a blood test for HCG serum levels (which must be over 25 mIU for a positive). As I said, the gestational sac does not form as soon as the HCG rises in the blood serum (produced by the early form of the placenta) and therefore the ultrasound would see nothing.

Moreover, if you have an ultrasound of you uterus, and I've probably had more than anyone here, including women who were pregnant several times (no joke), there is NO NEED for you as a patient to stare at the screen and be described exactly what is being seen. Moreover, it is also not necessary for a medical doctor to run the actual ultrasound - a tech is more than sufficient. I was never forced to look at any of the tumors on the ultrasound and believe me, I understood quite well that they were there.

This is all to say nothing of transvaginal ultrasounds which are intrusive and uncomfortable and entirely medically unnecessary.

I also ask, who is paying for these medical procedures? The taxpayers?

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by anitram

It's NOT a standard aspect for anyone I've known

We had ultrasounds for all four, as soon as we were pregnant. And I can say that each time we had someone there to explain to us exactly what we were seeing, especially since the first time we were six weeks pregnant and had no idea what we were looking at. (It's tricky for those of us who aren't medical professionals.)

As I said, the gestational sac does not form as soon as the HCG rises in the blood serum (produced by the early form of the placenta) and therefore the ultrasound would see nothing.

This may be true in the very early stages of pregnancy, but 40% of abortions take place after the tenth week, at which point not only has the sac formed, but the heart has begun pumping (in week six). And I can certainly testify that whatever you can't see at two weeks, you sure do at eight, ten or twelve.

[IWasBored]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

This may be true in the very early stages of pregnancy, but 40% of abortions take place after the tenth week, at which point not only has the sac formed, but the heart has begun pumping (in week six). And I can certainly testify that whatever you can't see at two weeks, you sure do at eight, ten or twelve.

But if the sole purpose of the ultrasound in the bill is to confirm pregnancy, none of that still makes it a necessary procedure.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by IWasBored

But if the sole purpose of the ultrasound in the bill is to confirm pregnancy, none of that still makes it a necessary procedure.

Except that the difference between aborting a four week old sac and a twelve or fourteen week old baby is substantial, from both a procedural perspective as well as a physical one. And given that some abortion providers have a history of lying to their patients about the ages of the babies growing inside them (Gosnell had a habit of lying to women about whether they were in the third trimester or not), a second -- and more objective -- opinion seems like a wise one.

Additionally -- I hope we can agree that the best choice is the most informed one. There are numerous stories of women who wanted an abortion and then changed their minds when they heard a heartbeat, saw the ultrasound, etc. Is that choice any less legitimate than the choice to abort? Should the option to change their mind not be afforded them?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Gosnell had a habit of lying to women about whether they were in the third trimester or not

Let's not use Gosnell as an example of an abortion doctor

[Pearl]

This isn't about abortion, but it does relate to women not being allowed to have dominion over their bodies:

Some inmates who spoke with the Center for Investigative Reporting said they were coerced by doctors into getting tubal ligation surgeries. The procedures allegedly took place between 2006 and 2010 at the California Institution for Women in Corona and Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, which is now a men's prison, according to CIR.
Doctors conducted the surgeries "without required state approvals," and inmates and prison advocates said they were aimed at pregnant prisoners who were "deemed likely to return to prison in the future," CIR found.
Dr. James Heinrich defended the operations: In an interview with CIR, Heinrich said he provided an important service to poor women who faced health risks in future pregnancies because of past Caesarean sections. The 69-year-old Bay Area physician denied pressuring anyone.
Jezebel's Laura Beck reacted with outrage, saying, "Another day, another step toward living in an even more twisted version of The Handmaid's Tale."
Writing for Politicususa.com, Jason Easley said the report offers proof that "forced or coerced sterilizations aren’t something that just happen in other countries. They are happening in the United States of America."

Female Inmates Sterilized Illegally In California Prisons: Report

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Let's not use Gosnell as an example of an abortion doctor

Was he not in fact an abortion provider who operated for decades despite numerous complaints filed against him?

We could always use the other doctors I've mentioned.

He's not the rule, but he is sadly not the exception either.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

He's not the rule, but he is sadly not the exception either.

Yes he is. Don't be ridiculous.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

And I can say that each time we had someone there to explain to us exactly what we were seeing, especially since the first time we were six weeks pregnant and had no idea what we were looking at. (It's tricky for those of us who aren't medical professionals.)

Of course you did. You and your wife presented as a couple who was very much committed and interested in having a baby.

Let's consider some other examples:

What about a couple who have had a couple of children born and die with a very serious genetic defect that is passed on and they decide that they no longer want to try to have children since the risk of them passing the gene on is too high. But they get pregnant accidentally. They don't wish to have another child die and their decision is made. Why should that poor woman be forced to stare at the screen and be described, in great detail, how the embryo is developing while somebody shoves an 8 inch transvaginal probe up her vagina?

What about a drug addict who is high as a kite most days and knows she can't/won't kick the habit and doesn't want to have the baby?

Or a young 17-year-old honor roll kid who gets pregnant accidentally but doesn't have a supporting family and wants to have an abortion so that she can take advantage of that full scholarship at a top university and go to med school like she's always planned?

Or a woman who was raped after a bar one night, or a teenager who was raped by her uncle who had been molesting her for years?

The more you write, the less I think we agree. You want to badger these women whose stories you know nothing about. And please don't tell me that this is about informed consent because no court that I am aware of has ruled that for informed consent you need to have a transvaginal probe up your vagina and you need to be forced to look at the ultrasound screen and listen to a narrative. If that was the case, half the medical procedures in the country would be performed without informed consent.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

He's not the rule, but he is sadly not the exception either.

If you seriously believe this, then your idea of what goes on at an abortion clinic is terribly skewed. I'm not sure how anyone can carry on a reasonable debate with you past this point.
You might as well cite Hannibal Lecter as a fine example of a psychiatrist. Or John Wayne Gacy as a reason the clown industry needs better safety guidelines

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

If you seriously believe this, then your idea of what goes on at an abortion clinic is terribly skewed. I'm not sure how anyone can carry on a reasonable debate with you past this point.
You might as well cite Hannibal Lecter as a fine example of a psychiatrist. Or John Wayne Gacy as a reason the clown industry needs better safety guidelines

I have mentioned four abortion providers who have been under serious investigation over the past five years alone. These are not fictional characters; these are matters of record and fact. These are just the ones we know of. When challenged, I have provided statistics and information to back up my perspective. I am not saying the perspective of others are wrong; my point has been to show that these matters are complicated, that middle ground must be sought, and that higher regulations are not necessarily the enemy of women's health. If you still believe I'm being unreasonable after a discussion that has been robust but not (IMHO) unfruitful, I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps there is nothing left to say at this point, and maybe it's best to put the thread to rest for a while.

FWIW: I do indeed believe the clown industry needs better regulations. That's because they terrify me. :-)

[anitram]

Are you at all familiar with how many physicians and surgeons are under investigation in any given year?

If you believe that FOUR in the last country that "we know of" is high, you are being ridiculous.

How many plastic surgeons? How many obstetricians who are implanting too many embryos? How many pathologists who have made questionable calls that landed people in jail? I have friends who litigate this stuff and again, if you think four in five years is "not the exception", you are FLAT OUT WRONG.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by anitram

If you believe that FOUR in the last country that "we know of" is high, you are being ridiculous.

How many illegal abortions in a given year would you be comfortable with?

Again, we are free to disagree on the number. And if there's nothing left to say on this subject that will be productive, then there is nothing left to say. I believe the points I've raised and questions I've asked are not unreasonable, but are representative of the way a majority of people feel in this country about this issue, and have the same legitimacy as those who disagree.

You, as always, remain free to hold a different view of me.

[trojanchick99]

Obviously much much fewer than you are, since you are in favor of limiting access to legal abortions. You do realize, this will force women into illegal abortions right? T

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

Obviously much much fewer than you are, since you are in favor of limiting access to legal abortions. You do realize, this will force women into illegal abortions right? T

not to mention that reducing the number of available clinics turns a 3-week pregnancy into a 4-week, an 8-week, a 12-week, etc.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

Obviously much much fewer than you are, since you are in favor of limiting access to legal abortions. You do realize, this will force women into illegal abortions right? T

Has there been a rise in the number of illegal abortions in PA since 2011, when they raised their standards?

As I have said, PP is always free to use some of their profits to raise the standards of the clinics they operate. Is it unreasonable to suggest that they do so?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I have mentioned four abortion providers who have been under serious investigation over the past five years alone. These are not fictional characters; these are matters of record and fact. These are just the ones we know of. When challenged, I have provided statistics and information to back up my perspective. I am not saying the perspective of others are wrong; my point has been to show that these matters are complicated, that middle ground must be sought, and that higher regulations are not necessarily the enemy of women's health. If you still believe I'm being unreasonable after a discussion that has been robust but not (IMHO) unfruitful, I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps there is nothing left to say at this point, and maybe it's best to put the thread to rest for a while.

FWIW: I do indeed believe the clown industry needs better regulations. That's because they terrify me. :-)

Would you not agree that bringing crooked doctor/psychopaths into the equation cheapens your argument? Is it not the same as when people cite freakishly rare shooting sprees as a reason for additional gun control?

I can't argue with you on your last point. Just writing about it gave me chills down my spine

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Would you not agree that bringing crooked doctor/psychopaths into the equation cheapens your argument?

I think it underlines my argument, especially once certain patterns start to emerge. The way that bombings in the Middle East underline some of the issues you have with radicalized religion. And I can't disagree with you (though we may disagree on how best to address those situations).

I can't argue with you on your last point. Just writing about it gave me chills down my spine

Clowns are a real problem that we have only begun to get serious about as a culture. One day. ;-)

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Has there been a rise in the number of illegal abortions in PA since 2011, when they raised their standards?

As I have said, PP is always free to use some of their profits to raise the standards of the clinics they operate. Is it unreasonable to suggest that they do so?

You keep making a correlation between these two, but there isn't one. Gosnell was practicing illegally under EVERY state and federal standard or regulation. So raising them would not have changed one thing in his case.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by BVS

You keep making a correlation between these two, but there isn't one. Gosnell was practicing illegally under EVERY state and federal standard or regulation. So raising them would not have changed one thing in his case.

The argument was made that raising standards in TX would lead to permanently-closed clinics and more illegal abortions. My question was whether raising standards in PA led to the same result.