Community Message Boards
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Now Alabama has a similar bill to Virginia in the works.

  1. #1

    Now Alabama has a similar bill to Virginia in the works.

    Now Alalaba has a similar biill (to Virginia's pre-abortion bill) in the works. It would require the doc to do an ultrasound, if not, the doc would get hefty fine. I was reading some statistics on the amazing surge in legislation this year regarding requirements prior to an abortion. I guess if I got this straight, the women would be forced to look at the ultrasound, and I think (but not 100%) that this would be required even in cases of rape.

    Is this what many Republicans call the need for small gov't?

    As someone on tv said, its really the Shame Women legislation.

    Here's some info form WHNT news......

    WHNT News 19 Reporter, Daniela Perallon
    10:57 p.m. CST, February 24, 2012

    Senate Bill 12 has passed the health committee and could face debate on the Senate floor as early as next Tuesday.

    The bill is sponsored by 9th district Republican Senator Clay Scofield.

    The bill would require women seeking an abortion to submit to either a transabdominal or transvaginal ultrasound. The woman would have no say in what type of ultrasound would be performed, rather it would be determined by the physician based on which ultrasound would provide the clearest image of the embryo or fetus.


    Already pro-choice advocates are speaking out.

    On Senator Scofield's Facebook page one woman wrote "please stay out of my uterus, thanks." One man compares SB 12 to "government rape."

    Another woman writes, "As one of your constituents I'd like to say that SB 12 is a slap in the face to grown women of Alabama who are fully capable of making decisions without being forced to undergo a horribly intrusive, medically unnecessary procedure."

    Scofield believes the procedure would allow women to be better informed.

    "The basis behind this this legislation is to make sure that a woman has all the information she can get at her disposal before she makes what might be the most difficult decision in her life," said Scofield. "By seeing an image of an unborn child in the womb, a person can tell that it is not just a "clump of cells". I have heard from women who, at an early age, had an abortion, and explained how they would have changed their minds had they seen an actual image of the child in their womb."


    Scofield says the exact bill passed the Alabama Senate last year, and the issue over transvaginal ultrasounds never came up.

    In response to the outcry over that portion of the bill, Scofield says, "my colleagues who support this bill and I will be taking a serious look at this portion of the bill before moving forward."

    Senator Greg Reed, a chairperson of the Senate Health Committee, is also the Vice President of Preferred Medical Systems, a company that sells ultrasound equipment.



    UPDATE -- I just read that on Sunday, the Gov said he didn't learn about the bill until he read about it on Huffington Post. And, I guess the sponsor of the bill, then agreed to modify it .... before the type of ultrasound that wouuld be performed, would be determined by the physician based on which ultrasound would provide the clearest image of the embryo or fetus. But newsflash, now the women would have, wait for, here's the change, the women could CHOOSE which type of ultrasound they want, no matter that their doc didn't need to do one for medical reasons. Ah..... that's what they say is choice.
    Last edited by applecrisp; 02-27-2012 at 07:30 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern Michigan--waaay northern
    Posts
    2,353
    Grrrr! It makes me so mad!

    Why not give the woman seeking the abortion the choice of ultrasound or no ultrasound--if it is about "being informed" that would cover it, no?

    So, if I put it all together right, we're heading in a direction where, if I am a single woman, I won't have access to birth control; I won't have access to abortion in the event of a pregnancy; I won't have access to pre-natal care; I won't have protections in the work-place for maternity leave; I won't have health insurance for my child...This is insanity!
    As the arc of history bends towards justice, it's a new, more progressive day. --Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, 11-07-12

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    102
    So, if I put it all together right, we're heading in a direction where, if I am a single woman, I won't have access to birth control; I won't have access to abortion in the event of a pregnancy; I won't have access to pre-natal care; I won't have protections in the work-place for maternity leave; I won't have health insurance for my child...This is insanity! Yesterday 05:49 PM
    That really does sum it up.

    I've always been somewhat disgusted by the fact that when states seek to pass these bills, they do so while also reducing the funding required to support the health and education of children once they're born. After all, not all of the children would be kept by the mothers, and not all of the mothers would be able to afford the children if they did keep them. Approximately 16 million children live in food insecure homes in the US...just think of how many children could be fed with the money being used for the unnecessary ultrasounds.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Metrowest MA
    Posts
    1,944
    Interesting bit posted on another board about this by an Alabaman:

    the sponsor of the bill, Greg Reed, is head of the state’s Health Committee. And wouldn’t ya know, he just happens to be a vice president at Preferred Medical Systems, a distributor of ultrasound imaging equipment.
    ETA: Oops, I see you posted about this above, but still, it does bring up a lot of questions about the REAL reason behind this bill...
    ~ ~ Leslie ~ ~

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,598
    Why am I not surprised? It will be interesting to see how all these right-wing extremist actions play out with the vast majority of moderate Americans in November.
    Adopt a shelter cat!
    www.arascolorado.org

  6. #6
    Oklahoma state Senator protests at Capital today.
    "If I wanted the government in my uterus, I'd f___ a senator."
    http://newsok.com/sen.-judy-eason-mc...rticle/3653193

    People are offended, but I find that less offensive than much of the legislation my state is passing or trying to pass.
    Jennifer


    And in the end it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.
    --Abraham Lincoln

    Write it on your heart that everyday is the best day of the year.
    --Emerson

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Baja Manitoba
    Posts
    3,737
    A couple of relevant points:

    -most abortion providers do either vaginal or abdominal ultrasounds already, since that is the most accurate way to date the pregnancy.

    -women having an abortion after 8 weeks gestation will have to have a surgical abortion. I'm not sure how the ultrasound is any more invasive than the abortion itself (in fact, I don't see how it's any more invasive than the Pap smear I have done every year).

    -transvaginal ultrasounds are not considered an invasive procedure from a medical point of view. A consent is not required prior to having one done.

    Why are people so upset about having to do an ultrasound? Is it because the woman having the ultrasound is forced to realize that her decision affects another human beiing?
    The motive power of democracy is love. ~ Henri Bergson

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by leebee View Post
    Grrrr! It makes me so mad!

    Why not give the woman seeking the abortion the choice of ultrasound or no ultrasound--if it is about "being informed" that would cover it, no?

    So, if I put it all together right, we're heading in a direction where, if I am a single woman, I won't have access to birth control; I won't have access to abortion in the event of a pregnancy; I won't have access to pre-natal care; I won't have protections in the work-place for maternity leave; I won't have health insurance for my child...This is insanity!

    Why are people so upset about having to do an ultrasound?
    I think for me, it's the collective thoughts of Leebee above. All of this is from the "smaller government" party. It seems they only want smaller government when it comes to their pocketbooks, their supporters' pocketbooks, but not when it comes to woman's health issues (among other things).
    Jennifer


    And in the end it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.
    --Abraham Lincoln

    Write it on your heart that everyday is the best day of the year.
    --Emerson

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaraB View Post

    Why are people so upset about having to do an ultrasound? Is it because the woman having the ultrasound is forced to realize that her decision affects another human beiing?
    It's because the anti-abortion people are once again inserting THEIR agenda into a person's relationship with a doctor. If it's medically necessary so be it but I sincerely doubt that an ultrasound is medically necessary for most abortions since ultrasounds are a relatively recent medical procedure and completely unnecessary for the health of the woman or the safety of the procedure.

    If it is MEDICALLY necessary why the need for Republican conservatives to legislate this requirement rather than assume a doctor will do what is MEDICALLY necessary. How the hell does this conform with their usual stance that "regulation" by government is bad? Utter hypocrisy.

    I am certainly not prepared to argue medial necessity with you but I have yet to read a single line of print from an unbiased source which states that any kind of vaginal ultrasound is medically necessary for the procedure. If it is necessary, then why is it necessary to legislate that instead of assuming that medical personnel will do what is medically necessary - not what is legislatively determined.

    When medical personnel who actually have the best interests of women write that such procedures are medically necessary and not part of a plot to shame women and make abortions more expensive and difficult then I would find your statement more believable.

    This is especially offensive constitutionally because the vaginal ultrasound is used in the first trimester and constitutional law provides that government has almost NO valid interest in regulating first semester abortions and only a moderate amount during the second trimester.

    ETA - There is no "medical" necessity for the procedure. It is required because a "clear image" is required by the legislature which has nothing to do with "medical decisions" which are between a human being and their doctor.

    Excellent summary of the various laws and their requirements which underscore there being no medial reason for the requirement.

    Abortions are legal and woman who have them don't deserve to be treated any differently than someone who is getting a tumor removed or any other valid medical procedure.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us...ef=todayspaper
    Last edited by amarante; 02-29-2012 at 08:55 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    7,088
    Anyone who says a transvaginal ultrasound is not invasive has not had a transvaginal ultrasound!
    kathyb


    Less rhetoric, more cowbell!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern Michigan--waaay northern
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathy B View Post
    Anyone who says a transvaginal ultrasound is not invasive has not had a transvaginal ultrasound!
    I had to have transvaginal ultrasounds with both of my pregnancies. There were issues, and it was medically necessary. I remember the first one. I was petrified, it was cold in the room, and the ultrasound tech had no bedside manner whatsoever. I had to help hold the wand in place while she manipulated that image. I was young, I was scared, I was mortified. I cried for half an hour afterwards. And this was for a pregnancy I intended to carry through with, one I never intended to terminate. I would fight any legislation to force every pregnant woman to go through with a transvaginal ultrasound, regardless of whether it's for an abortion or not. I don't care if it is defined as such or not, it is invasive. Something can be physically invasive, but also morally or ethically or psychologically invasive. But when I imagine a woman who is seeking an abortion having to go through with it, it's just so inhumane. Especially if it's one due to rape. Even if there's no rape, though, I am not going to presume to put myself in another woman's shoes, into her life, decide for her what is "right." It's against every moral fiber of my being to do so.
    As the arc of history bends towards justice, it's a new, more progressive day. --Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, 11-07-12

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathy B View Post
    Anyone who says a transvaginal ultrasound is not invasive has not had a transvaginal ultrasound!
    I had one when I ended up at the ER with what turned out to be a ruptured ovarian cyst. It was a really awful experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
    Adopt a shelter cat!
    www.arascolorado.org

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    5,353
    Quote Originally Posted by leebee View Post
    Even if there's no rape, though, I am not going to presume to put myself in another woman's shoes, into her life, decide for her what is "right." It's against every moral fiber of my being to do so.
    With these insane laws, it's not even up to the woman to decide what's "right". It's being decided by men....those who know nothing about medicine, about being a woman, about ultrasounds, etc.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    San Ramon, CA
    Posts
    12,858
    I think my whole problem with this is that they are treating women like idiots. Do they really think that women don't understand what an abortion is? Seeing the blip/fetus/heartbeat on an ultrasound isn't going to make it any more 'real' to them. They know what they are doing and have made a very difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. Why spend unneccessary time, money and effort (both the doctor, the lab and the patient with medical procedures.

    Its not cost effective, I doubt it deters anyone and it MAKES NO SENSE
    Democrats are Sexy. Who has ever heard of a good piece of elephant?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by tbb113 View Post
    I think my whole problem with this is that they are treating women like idiots. Do they really think that women don't understand what an abortion is? Seeing the blip/fetus/heartbeat on an ultrasound isn't going to make it any more 'real' to them. They know what they are doing and have made a very difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy....
    Actually, I do think they think women are idiots and/or have no respect for women. We know from their other positions on social issues that this issue is not about "life". ( I agree that they are very concerned about embryonic and fetal life but not so much about children, etc.)

    For the extremist right this is and always has been about women's sexuality and power.
    Adopt a shelter cat!
    www.arascolorado.org

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,145
    We, the voters, with a lot of help from entrenched politicians, have created a system where a lot of power resides in the hands of people who have their own agendas and who are not looking out for the common good. How can a person who has never experienced situation X possible think they know more about situation X than the person going through it. Why does the person in power feel they have the right and mandate to make laws that dictate how situation X is to be resolved? Because we keep electing them. We, the voters, need to bring the power back to us, the people. With the plolitical entrenchment we face this will not be an easy task but we must start - this election is the time to do so.
    Anne

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    102
    Why are people so upset about having to do an ultrasound? Is it because the woman having the ultrasound is forced to realize that her decision affects another human beiing?
    As others have said, the fact it is not medically necessary is a concern. The cost of health care in our country is already high, and politicians are often accusing doctors and insurance companies of authorizing unnecessary procedures just to make a buck. Given how many people in our country can't afford decent cancer care, I find it offensive that politicians would enact a law requiring an unnecessary medical procedure for something that is legal. I am completely sickened by how much people care about unborn children in this country, but then once these same children are born, we refuse to give "handouts" that will help those same children live healthy lives. We have basic healthcare for senior Americans, but if you're a child, you are at the whim of the state government unless you are lucky enough to be born to a parent with good health insurance.

    The assumption that a woman having an abortion does not understand that her decision is affecting the life of another human is, well, completely judgmental. While it may not be the same decision you believe you would ever make, it doesn't mean it is one that other women make lightly. I would never judge a family for deciding to take a loved one off of life support, no matter the age of the person, although I know people who say this is something they would never do, for the very reason you stated, that it is affecting another human being. Such decisions are intensely personal and people making such decisions deserve a little compassion.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern Michigan--waaay northern
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by daisylover View Post
    The assumption that a woman having an abortion does not understand that her decision is affecting the life of another human is, well, completely judgmental. While it may not be the same decision you believe you would ever make, it doesn't mean it is one that other women make lightly. I would never judge a family for deciding to take a loved one off of life support, no matter the age of the person, although I know people who say this is something they would never do, for the very reason you stated, that it is affecting another human being. Such decisions are intensely personal and people making such decisions deserve a little compassion.
    Here, here. I like how you've made this point. Thank you.
    As the arc of history bends towards justice, it's a new, more progressive day. --Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, 11-07-12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •