?

Log in

No account? Create an account
vw

give 'em the ol' razzle dazzle, razzle dazzle 'em

Posted on 2005.16.03 at 22:11
How I feel about it all: curiouscurious
Soundtrack: Chicago Soundtrack - Razzle Dazzle

Act Now!


Tomorrow, March 17th, the Indiana House Public Policy and Veterans' Affairs Committee will hear Senate Bill 76 in room 156-D of the statehouse at 10am. SB 76 would set up another unnecessary hurdle for a woman seeking an abortion, specifically an addition to the "Informed Consent" law. But SB 76 could become much worse: it could become the home of the invasive, unconstitutional ideas this committee already heard in House Bill 1607.

About SB 76, they say, SB 76 would require a health care provider to offer a pregnant woman the opportunity to view an ultrasound image or hear the heart tones of the fetus before performing an abortion. This bill does nothing to improve the quality of care received by patients. Indiana’s informed consent law already insures that patients receive full information on the abortion procedure, possible risks, and alternatives available. All Indiana abortion providers already perform an ultrasound before any abortion, to confirm the gestation of the fetus; all patients are welcome to view the ultrasound at that time. However, a fetoscope cannot detect a heartbeat until 16—20 weeks gestation, and even newer Doppler technology cannot measure heart tones until 8-10 weeks. 58% of abortions are performed by 8 weeks’ gestation; with advances in surgical technique and the availability of abortion by medication, the percentage of early abortions will only increase.



They're talking offer, not force. The patient can say no. The 'hurdle' is saying no to the ultrasound. What's wrong with this idea?

Comments:


Junesrose
junesrose at 2005-03-17 01:24 (UTC) ()
What I want to know is 'who' is paying for this ultrasound? If the providers already perform an ultrasound to determine gestation, then I can't see insurance companies paying for another "leisure" ultrasound. So, I seriously doubt the woman seeking the abortion would self-pay for an ultrasound, "just to look".

When I had my daughter 12 yrs ago, my OB did NOT do a routine ultrasound until we discovered that she was breech. The OB stated the very reason that "routine" ultrasounds are being refused by insurance co.'s.

Even if it were to pass, I seriously doubt it would have much of an impact. I think every woman who will go through this has thought long and hard about this decision, and is not going to give in to this tactic.
lupin_spirit
lupin_spirit at 2005-03-17 01:49 (UTC) ()
I don't really see anything wrong with it. Women should be completely aware or at least have the opportunity to be aware of the specifics of their choice. And like you said, it's about making the offer, all a woman has to do is say no.

I'm not entirely sure what it is supposed to accomplish though - at 8-10 weeks, when most abortions take place, the sonogram doesn't show anything that looks even remotely like a baby and the same goes for the heartbeat, it's a whirring sound, not an actual recognizable heartbeat.

It frustrates me that those who claim to fight for our rights, seem to do the exact same thing as those who seek to limit us. They all want to tell us what is best for us and not to worry our pretty little heads over the details.

How is this any different than showing us the results of x-rays or other tests?
Blithedale
blithedale at 2005-03-17 13:59 (UTC) ()

The problem is...

not with what essentially a lovely concept. That's the strategy. make things on the surface sound totally unobjectionable and then stick it to them in the details.

The idea is to set up hurdles not just for the patient but for the providers. So you make the provider provide an ultrasound. That means that the provider has to have more ultrasound machines and more staff. In all likelihood it is also designed to create the need for more office visits before a procedure. More times a woman has to make arrangements, cross protest lines, time to have her license plate traced. Pile on the "informed consent" requirements one "reasonable" addition at a time just to make it harder.

The informed consent law to which this is an amendment by the way already requires 2 visits in the presence of the physician who will be prefroming the abortion.

As it stands currently there is no obstacle to a woman asking for the ultrasound. In fact the ultrasounds are being performed and any patient has a right to see/hear their own ultrasound.

This is not about increasing access to medical care -- it's about increasing the bureaucracy around doctors and patients who want a legal safe medical procedure.


Previous Entry  Next Entry