How is stattute formed?
How governor get eletcted?
This…sounds like a job for PreCrime!
Call out Tom Cruise!
ratatoskK rocks.
Very small rocks.
Motherfuckers. They are now requiring ultrasound for all abortions by eliminating the previous exemption for pregnancies of 12 weeks or less. So we’re back to rape them twice. God damn the GOP.
What? What’s the problem with an ultrasound?
‘Look! It’s a baby! That’s what you want to kill! You monster!’
I guess. The “baby” doesn’t look like anything though and I would expect most people would have had their first pregnancy confirmation ultrasound by the time they’ve decided to abort anyway.
My ex-wife had a miscarriage after her first ultrasound and before 12 weeks and although it was a bit sad, neither of us had any feeling that a baby had died or anything.
It’s the sentiment behind it, the idea that the woman isn’t going to feel bad (or, at least, not bad enough) unless she sees the Beautiful Unique Life she is Throwing Away due to her Whorish Ways.
An ultrasound machine that made the baby say “Mommy, why?” would sell like hotcakes in the regions with these laws.
Ok, fair enough.
Because for the early weeks, the ultrasound has to be done transvaginal. So, they are going to insist that all women get raped a second time. Virgina tried that earlier this year, and the wide-spread criticism got the Republicans to back down. I guess people didn’t pay enough attention to Arizona.
The law mandates that there has to be the ultrasound 24 hours prior. It used to be one hour and only for fetuses more than 12 weeks. Yup. The woman got raped, so she’s got to have an invasive ultrasound which sole purpose is to punish the woman. Way to go fuckers. GOP, own your assholes.
So, in addition to slut-shaming, they are going to make the trauma for rape and incest victims absolutely as painful and shameful as possible. The mental health of women is not the concern of Republicans.
My wife specifically turned down a transvaginal ultrasound when she was pregnant, she preferred to wait until traditional abdominal ultra sound would work for one.
The probe used for transvaginal looks like a large hammerheaded dildo, law makers knew exactly what they were doing by requiring it(intimidating women).
How early? My wife’s first ultrasound was well before 12 weeks but it was external. It was basically a confirmation that she was pregnant, so it was quite early.
This site says that a trans-vaginal ultrasound can detect signs of pregnancy around 4 - 5 weeks while an abdominal ultrasound can detect it “several days later”. That to me sounds like the window where a trans-vaginal ultrasound is necessary to see anything, would be small. I do agree though that it is silly to make someone have an ultrasound if the purpose is to guilt them in to not having an abortion.
I’m taking my information from the Virgina bill earlier this year.
Donno the exact difference between the Arizona law which is clearly designed to punish women and the Virgina bill which was clearly designed to punish women, but in the case of the later, it was a requirement that appears to only be satisfied through the second forced insertion of an object into the vagina of a rape victim, something which Republican lawmakers clearly worry about.
Perhaps the Arizona law does not have this specific requirement. However, it still has new requires an ultrasound simply to shame and increase the guilt for the woman. It’s not bad enough that a woman was raped. They must also be strung along and mocked. Lovely party. One can guess that the daughters of Republican lawmakers will quietly slip away to LA if they need to, while the poor are forced to have their trauma multiplied.
This deserves to be included on page 2, just in case anyone missed it on page 1.
I’m against the ultrasound requirement but I don’t see it being quite as big of a deal as some people are making it. Women, including rape victims or potential rape victims who want to make sure they don’t get pregnant, also have to have a speculum inserted into their vagina (which hurts a hell of a lot more than a transvaginal ultrasound, in my experience [ETA: also more humiliating since with the ultrasound no one is shining a bright light onto your genitals and staring at them, and you usually insert the ultrasound probe yourself]), so what’s the real difference? Of course, I don’t think doctors should hold birth control pills hostage until a woman gets a pap smear either, but no one is up in arms over that.
You could say the motive behind the two requirements is the difference, but not exactly, because why shouldn’t women be trusted to decide for themselves what medical procedures they want? In both cases, the test isn’t really necessary to ensure the safety or necessity of the desired treatment.
Why? And, more to the point, when? In the week/s just subsequent to being raped? No, no they do not. An internal exam is not medically required for a medical abortion.
An internal exam might be required to collect evidence for a rape kit (which can then languish in a 6 month backlog or sit on a shelf “lost” for two decades), but a woman can always decline any or all of the sexual assault forensic exam.
Yeah, I’m pretty up in arms over that, as are many of us who pay attention to studies showing that annual PAPs probably do more harm than good. But the difference as I see it re: public reaction is that when you tell women they don’t need annual PAPs, they think of it as the insurance company or “government death panels” taking away or rationing lifesaving care. Guess which party we have to thank for that kind of thinking in the public zeitgeist?
Oh, sorry, I totally messed that up. I meant that women have to have pap smears in order to get birth control. But I left out the part about birth control.
Haven’t they changed the recommendation to 3 years now, once you have a history of normal paps or something? In any case, that’s why I won’t get birth control pills anymore, I’m just not going through that again. Every time I’ve done it, it’s been extremely painful and I’d rather have a transvaginal ultrasound any day. Glad to hear others are pissed about this too, because I never hear anyone say it.
What is the harm you’re talking about though?
PAP hijack:
If you test everybody every year, you’re going to find a lot of cervical dysplasia that would have spontaneously resolved in 12-36 months without any intervention at all. But because now you know about it, the impetus is there to treat it, needlessly. All treatments carry some risk. Some of the more common interventions for cervical dysplasia (which, I’m sorry, 98% of women hear as “ohmigod, cancer!!!”) cause higher rates of miscarriage and premature delivery of future fetuses, because they weaken the cervix.
The psychological stress, not only to a woman but to her family, when she gets a (potentially false) abnormal PAP is harm enough, in my book, to carefully consider whether the outcomes are worth it.
PAPs aren’t actually all that great at helping doctors discover cancer, but in the process of doing them, they often find benign cysts or fibroids that give the woman something to (needlessly) worry about. Often surgical intervention is recommended “just in case”, and surgery carries risks
Also because women hate them so much that they stay away from their doctors for years on end until there is a symptomatic reason that they can’t ignore any longer. While you don’t necessarily need an annual PAP, you should have an annual checkup, and women skipping the former often skip the later. So the policy of requiring an annual PAP perversely drives (some) women to get no annual care.
While there are studies and recommendations to change to a three-year schedule, in the US we still routinely to them annually, and insurance covers them annually. Like I said, it’s political suicide to suggest otherwise right now.
Really? They insist you need a pap test before getting birth control pills? Huh, never heard of that one- certainly not a requirement over this side of the pond. Is there any actual justification for it, or is it just to pressure women into an unpleasant and dubiously medically necessary procedure (dubious at least when annual)?
We only bother with the test every 3 years, which reminds me, I need to book the damn thing sometime soonish.
Incidently, we don’t do an annual check up of any kind over here- apparently the NHS decided they’re not actually worth it, as they’re not that effective at finding problems, and people are more likely to ignore problems that develop in the months after a check-up, believing it can’t be serious or it would have been picked up then.