I had an abortion in California, and I had to have an ultrasound. I don't know if the policy came from the state or the clinic, but I guess they had to know if the fetus was still under the 12 weeks or whatever. Maybe if they just framed the law like that, they could shove it through more easily, but they always have to wave their little fascist flags.

I wrote recently of the ultrasound bill that is in general assembly in Kentucky. Just got an email from my aunt (forwarded, of course) urging me to call my legislators and ask that they pass this bill. I'm torn between biting my tongue and speaking my mind. My whole (large) family is Catholic and anti-choice. I guess best to keep the peace and save my blood pressure.

BabyPop, I respect your desire to not rock the boat, but I've found that sometimes the situation you've described is a good one to educate people about what the implications of the legislation actually are.

A colleague of my husband's was recently talking about how Georgia's (recently tabled) bill to define life as beginning at ferilization was amazing. I asked if he knew that a significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant (I think it's a third to a half?) and that the bill was thus unenforceable. He had no idea.

Granted, spouse's colleague =/= family and I know there are political conversations I won't have with my mother, so just my 2 cents.

Fucking disgusting.

I have never heard of a vaginal probe ultrasound, though - are these common? I'm no medical expert or anything, but any ultrasound i've seen (ok on A Baby Story or whatever) has been the normal, on the belly kind. Why would vaginal be necessary?

The thought that some old white men are telling women what they have to have inserted into their vaginas for no fucking medical reason is enough to make me go ballistic.

I can understand doing an ultrasound to date a pregnancy, because in the early weeks it's difficult to tell how far along a woman is, and it makes a difference when you're doing an abortion. But having had several of the vaginal-probe ultrasounds, I can imagine that they'd be very traumatic to a rape victim. My friends and I have been calling them the "dildo cam." The wands aren't small. But what do anti-choicers care about rape victims? To them, the important thing is to punish a woman seeking an abortion as much as possible.

MyBabyPanda--the vaginal wand ultrasound is very common in early pregnancy, as it's the best way to visualize the uterus. When it's early, the uterus is still small and low in the abdomen, and the best way to get a good picture is to go in through the vagina. I hadn't heard of it before I got pregnant either, but it didn't surprise me, having had endoscopic ultrasounds in the past to image my pancreas. (Endoscopic meaning going through your mouth into the stomach.)

As I said above, I can understand that there are sometimes medical reasons. But that should be between a woman and her medical provider, not written in the law.

Yeah, just rape them again w/ a vaginal probe wand camera thingy. They're just women after all - not real people /snark

Here is the email I got:

We are in a state of urgency because we only have today (Monday) and tomorrow morning (Tuesday morning) to make a difference. Our friends and allies at The Family Foundation have notified us that Senate Bill 40 (SB 40) is still alive. SB 40 – the pro-life Ultrasound Bill – has received hundreds of calls by citizens who want it passed, but the committee chairman – Rep. Kathy Stein – did not even give it a hearing in her committee. She is supported in her plan to kill the bill by a small group within House Leadership. Conservative Democrats in the House (mostly from rural areas) are being denied the chance to vote on it by a few liberals of their own Party. They need to step up and tell their leadership, “We want that bill!"

SB 40 will require an abortion clinic to give full disclosure to a woman considering abortion through an ultrasound. Since clinics currently use ultrasound to help determine the amount of money to charge for an abortion based on age of gestation, they should have no problem with allowing the woman to see the image of the child within her womb. Besides the ultrasound, SB 40 also bans Partial-Birth Abortion and requires an abortion clinic to have face-to-face counseling with the abortionist prior to the procedure rather than the taped recording some use to skirt the law.

This Bill will save children! In some areas, up to 50 percent of the women who see their ultrasound choose life rather than follow through with the abortion. Similarly important, that choice of life protects those women from a lifetime of grief and regret.

VOMIT VOMIT VOMIT!

They don't require ultrasounds for women who choose to remain pregnant. You don't see anyone proposing legislation to force a woman who wants a baby to view an ultrasound and say, "See? This thing is only going to get bigger, and it's gonna hurt like fuck when it comes out. I mean, if you want your vagina to go inside out, that's fine. Just don't say I didn't warn you."

Hm. U/S for the purpose of dating the pregnancy is actually not a bad idea.

However, when you consider the impact this has on healthcare providers, I can't help but to think that they may be hoping that the financial expense of performing abortions will push many providers out, or make the abortions so costly that women can't afford them.

Lastly, that they would specify vaginal u/s seems like they're seeking to humiliate women at a pretty crappy time in their lives.

this is the same state who declared watermelon as their state vegetable.

*sigh*

Having had many, many, many, many transvaginal ultrasounds (fertility treatments, yay), the idea that any woman should be required by law to have one, or required by anything except the absolute medical necessity of one, makes me sick.

Also, someone enlighten me: people object to performing pap smears on single women...why, exactly? I mean that question sincerely: I can't understand why.

LucyGillam said: Also, someone enlighten me: people object to performing pap smears on single women...why, exactly? I mean that question sincerely: I can't understand why.

That was my question. Last time I checked, cervical cancer didn't pop up, say "woops this person is single" and then go away. Not to mention I was raped, got HPV from my perpetrator, and have been vigilant about my paps ever since. I was still single when the rape occured. That makes no sense.

Oh, and the "dildo cam" is not fun. I've had a few to try and diagnose some intestinal problems I've had (to no avail) and had I recently been raped I would have freaked out on the table.

I'm really annoyed by this AND I live in Florida.

The bill stinks, the whole concept enrages me.

But transvaginal ultrasounds aren't any more invasive than abortion, which also requires sticking implements in there, no?

And it is true that vaginal ultrasounds are commonly used in early pregnancy. I've had them twice in early pregnancy, and once to verify my IUD wasn't lost or infected.

ultrasound for the purpose of dating a pregnancy does not make it necessary to show the woman what's going on. I had an ultrasound once to identify a pain in my side. I kind of wanted her to show me all my organs, I thought it'd be fun, but instead she just kept the monitor turned towards herself and I was bored out of my mind with a slimy belly.

So requiring that the doctors "show" the women the heartbeat and fetal movement is disgusting.

Also, does the "anti-discrimination" thingy cover all procedures? I feel like that could be a catch 22. What if they were required to hire someone who refused to perform vaginal probes?

I'm morally against the idea of reviving Dick Cheney after his next heart attack. Is his hospital still required to hire me? /sarcasm

LucyGillam said: Also, someone enlighten me: people object to performing pap smears on single women...why, exactly? I mean that question sincerely: I can't understand why.

The problem here is that if you are single, you are (obviously) unmarried, and if you are unmarried you ought not be having the sex. And if you are an unmarried virgin, you shouldn't have to worry about HPV or cervical cancer. Because, you know, only sluts get that.

/snark.

This kind of legislation is so offensive. It assumes that women are idiots, and they simply need the gentle guidance of the state to fully "inform" them as to what a pregnancy is.

In Idaho, during committee testimony on our little version of this bill, several women got up and testified that if only they'd known it was a baaaby in their uterus, they would have never aborted. If only someone had told them it was a baaaby!

What the fuck did they think it was?

Now the state must make sure that every woman contemplating abortion knows its a baaaby, because they're apparently just too stupid to figure this out.

Bullshit! I have a certain contempt for women who oppose abortion by portraying all women as stupid and badly in need of guidance.

There's a special place in hell for them.

Requires women's health clinics that provide abortion to "conspicuously" post a sign on the premises that states it is "against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion."

Now if some enterprising legislator could propose amending the bill to require "crisis pregnancy centers" to inform women that "it is against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to give birth" and maybe the equivalent of C-Span could capture the looks on the sponsors' faces . . .

Aside from the sheer bullshit of this legislation, I really like how they attempt to protect discriminating against a woman by protecting health workers who refuse to do "a pap smear on a single woman." Apparently, we are still property in marriage.

How to break the Republicans of their misogyny? This is unacceptable as we cant have one wing of our government anti-women, and the other 'more open' to women. All this does is reassert a second status for us. Its untolerable.

Now if some enterprising legislator could propose amending the bill to require "crisis pregnancy centers" to inform women that "it is against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to give birth" and maybe the equivalent of C-Span could capture the looks on the sponsors' faces . . .

Interestingly, there's nothing to stop the actual abortion clinics from doing this, is there? They could put up signs saying "It is against the law for anybody, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you either to have an abortion or to continue a pregnancy against your will." That would fulfill the law and be a good thing.

Kyra,
Exactly. CPCs are a serious problem for women. They are medical hacks, and should be illegal. Why is it were redirecting all this energy on legit institutions rather than on these penny-a-piece CPCs who pose medical threats on society?

This is so depressing.

Should I require a vaginal ultrasound for medically necessary reasons, that's one thing. Being forced by the government to have one for absolutely no medical reason is beyond creepy. Forcing doctors to do ultrasounds on women who want abortions is also really creepy.

Ive had a vaginal probe for ovarian cysts and didnt have a problem with it at all. I found it interesting to witness my reproductive organs and actually see what was causing me so much pain.

However, it makes complete sense how a rape survivor could possibly have a negative effect from it and could trigger traumatic flashbacks. I cant believe how fucked this legislation is. It is completely disrespectful to women.

As an Oklahoman, I have been following the news coverage of this bill. I had no idea it included the portion that made it okay for physicians to discriminate against their patients. . . what about the women who can't take more than a day off from work a month, arrive at the doctor's and then can't get the healthcare they need? I am going to write Gov. Henry asking for a veto. Not only is this legislation patronizing and discriminatory, Oklahoma doesn't need anything else contributing to our less than modern reputation.

Oops! My last post mightve made it seem I have no problem with vaginal probes unless youre raped, which is most certaintly NOT the case. I find it demeaning, and offensive, and actually a forced ultrasound would be tantamount to being raped by an object. My last post was simply to reassure anyone whose about to have a vaginal ultrasound (hopefully for legit reasons) that it is not painful for everyone.

I had a transvaginal ultrasound to check for PCOS, and I had to have a full bladder-it was awful, and I can imagine a lot of cases where the woman just can't hold it anymore, leading to the ultrasound being delayed/postponed. Is that part of the plan.

Do they really want the government mandating/forcing invasive, medically unneccessary medical procedures? Because you know who else does that? CHINA!

Unless, of course, you're just barely large enough for an ultra-sized tampon. Seriously, I had to get "palpitated" once and all the painful stretching almost made me cry. (Ugh, it's a comment on our culture that discussing that medical procedure anonymously on a feminist blog still makes me feel embarrassed and shameful.)

I'm sure I'm not the only virgin with a tiny vaginal opening and I'm sure that being raped wouldn't result in me being large enough to permit a vaginal ultrasound probe. And if it did, I'd be willing to bet that the sudden size increase would be due to tearing and tissue damage.

Anecdote time! A couple of years ago, I needed an ultrasound of my bladder region, but I hadn't drank enough water for the abdominal to work. The technician suggested that I might need a vaginal probe and pulled out this huge wand. As she started prepping it, I meekly said "Um, I'm a virgin; will that be a problem?" I will never forget her horrified expression in response. I was quickly booted out to the lounge to drink a big cup of Koolaid. There was no debate or "size checking" to see if using the wand would be appropriate for me.

Seeing as how it just takes one sperm to get a person knocked up, there is pretty much an infinite number of situations where using a vaginal ultrasound probe would be more harmful than helpful. The proviso about "producing the best image" is horrific, unnecessary and I would venture, a violation of the Hippocratic oath.

I've had a few experiences with the dildo cam, and it's not that bad. Then again, my doctor has the patient insert it herself, which does a good deal to making it feel less like a sexual invasion.

I have no idea if this is standard procedure or if my doctor is awesome (read, a decent human being).

Vodalus, I don't think your size argument is going to fly. After all, to do the actual abortion they'll be sticking in a speculum and cranking it open. And a open speculum is bigger than the ultrasound wand. I found the ultrasound way less uncomfortable than a speculum.

Hey Governor Henry! Top Ten Reasons NOT To Veto SB 1878

1. After the ice storm and the floods, why show Oklahoma women any kind of compassion now?

2. Turning a technological, diagnostic tool into a medical tool of propaganda is fun!

3. Ultrasounds were first developed for military use so this is a proper way of declaring war on Oklahoma women.

4. Hey, it only hikes up the price of abortion by 100-200 bucks. Who doesn’t have a couple of Ben Franklins hanging out with nothing to do?

5. For Oklahomans to make an informed decision about abortion, state intervention is necessary.

6. State intervention is needed so pregnant Oklahomans will know that what they’re aborting is human. Some Oklahomans think they’re pregnant with aliens.

7. State intervention is needed so pregnant Oklahomans will know that what they’re aborting is alive. Some Oklahomans think they’re pregnant with dead aliens.

8. THERE'S SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH STATE INTERVENTION in Oklahomans’ personal lives.

9. The next step is to mandate catheterizing men before a vasectomy -- but they don’t have to watch!

10. There’s no better way of causing resentment and distrust of Oklahoma lawmakers.

There is a big difference between using ultrasound for dating a pregnancy and forcing a practitioner to point out a heart beat and movement to the patient. There was a study done (I would need to hunt for it) that showed that women who were made to see ultrasounds were more likely to change their minds about getting terminations. That screen rotates. Most good practitioners give the woman the option of viewing it.

A good portion of women who get abortions already have children and are pretty well versed on what at ultrasound would look like. They don't need to be educated on what it in their womb, and anyone can request to view one.

Unfortunately, vaginal ultrasound is what you would need in those early weeks, and that is when the vast majority of women get abortions. I had to get one when I was miscarrying - it was not enjoyable. We sued to call it the "dildo cam" at the birth center where I trained. Not to the moms, but to each other.

The problem here is that if you are single, you are (obviously) unmarried, and if you are unmarried you ought not be having the sex. And if you are an unmarried virgin, you shouldn't have to worry about HPV or cervical cancer. Because, you know, only sluts get that.

I...but that...I mean, most people I know (myself included) only fairly recently learned that cervical cancer can be caused by an STD at all. I've been getting paps for 20 years now, and not ONE practitioner even brought that up. From where is this Martian logic coming, that there are people who actually think this way?

Dr. Mason-- those are so funny, I'm posting them to my facebook with credit given to this page. :)

"SB 1878 is a hideous piece of anti-choice omnibus legislation that would, among other things, compel physicians one hour prior to performing an abortion to do an ultrasound on the patient and point out various features (e.g. heart beat, fetal movements) to the patient. A vaginal probe ultrasound is mandated if that gives the best image, even in those instances where the unwanted pregnancy is the result of rape. In first trimester terminations (almost all of them) that will be the case."

My first guess is that they realize women and girls seeking early abortions wouldn't be deterred by the sight of a fetal heart since there isn't one yet, so the vaginal-ultrasound requirement is an extra deterrent targeting them.

My second guess is that they also don't want to leave open a loophole for any patients and providers who realize ultrasounds aren't just for pregnancy (for one of many possibilities: "But seeing my headless fetus was bad enough the first time! Do you have to make me see it again?" "Yeah, the law requires that I do an ultrasound and show you the heartbeat...wait a minute...ever seen *your* heart?")

"Ive had a vaginal probe for ovarian cysts and didnt have a problem with it at all. I found it interesting to witness my reproductive organs and actually see what was causing me so much pain."

Me too (although I was in less pain from the PCOS).

"Should I require a vaginal ultrasound for medically necessary reasons, that's one thing. Being forced by the government to have one for absolutely no medical reason is beyond creepy."

Exactly!

"I had a transvaginal ultrasound to check for PCOS, and I had to have a full bladder-it was awful"

WTF? I was told that I didn't need a full bladder if I wanted a vaginal ultrasound instead of an abdominal one.

But transvaginal ultrasounds aren't any more invasive than abortion, which also requires sticking implements in there, no?

This bill requires that a woman have something inserted into her vagina and then be forced to view the U/S for no other reason than to have someone point out the fetal heartbeat and movements…yes, that is much more invasive than a wanted abortion. Even if a U/S is required to determine fetal age, why would a vaginal U/S ever be necessary? If the fetus is too small to determine the age with a regular U/S, then, obviously, the pregnancy is in the 1st trimester. That’s all the clinician needs to know. As FEMily pointed out, no woman carrying her pregnancy to term is required to view an U/S, why force a woman who wants to end the pregnancy?

And it is true that vaginal ultrasounds are commonly used in early pregnancy.

Vaginal ultrasounds in early pregnancy are only necessary if you are high-risk. Otherwise, vaginal U/S’s aren’t “commonly used in early pregnancy." As a matter of fact, a woman with a low-risk pregnancy really shouldn't have anymore than one ultrasound, generally done for "vanity" purposes - i.e. a picture of the fetus for the parent(s), after 20 weeks.

I can't imagine vagina ultra-sounds are comfortable for any woman, but being a rape survivor and having to have an ultrasound like this 2 or 3 times, its insanely tramatic. I can't begin to express how horrible it was.

I can't believe this bill exists. then again its men making laws about a womans body they know nothing about. I'd like to see how they would handle that kind of trama...

augh! Makes me sick.

GrimaWormtongue,
(interesting name)
"its men making laws about a womans body they know nothing about"

Thats why we need loads of (non-right) women in office. 16% (that is, 16 women) out of 100 senators is NOT acceptable!

ShelbyWoo--the 20 week ultrasound is absolutely NOT done for "vanity" reasons, it is done to check the developing fetus for abnormalities. If it were for vanity reasons, would they check the heart, the spine, & the brain? "Here's a nice shot of your baby's brain for your mantelpiece." Also, health insurance wouldn't pay for it if it weren't for medical reasons. Health insurance companies are not known for their altruism. And I think you misunderstood the other quote--it's true, ultrasounds aren't commonly done in early pregnancy, but when they are, the vaginal probe is commonly used.

Lucy Gillam: "I...but that...I mean, most people I know (myself included) only fairly recently learned that cervical cancer can be caused by an STD at all. I've been getting paps for 20 years now, and not ONE practitioner even brought that up. From where is this Martian logic coming, that there are people who actually think this way?"

There was a good post about the at Rh Reality check not long ago (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/06/abnormal-paps-pap-smears-doctors-refusing-canada)
I don't know how long this attitude has been around -- conceivably just since the link between HPV and cervical cancer was found.

The dangerous thing about this attitude (besides the fact that doctors are refusing to treat patients... like it's not their job or something. hmph) is that we really don't know all that much about the link yet. If you poke around a bit, you'll see a bunch of different numbers for what percentage of cervical cancer is caused by HPV, mostly because so many people have HPV but so few of them (relatively speaking) have actually developed cervical cancer. Is there something else causing cervical cancer? What other risk factors are there out there? We just don't know yet. Is it possible that unmarried women will get very sick because of doctors' refusal to treat them? definitely. Something really needs to be done about doctors and pharmacists who are too busy pushing their agendas to actually do their jobs.

Bluepencils:

If there is a reason to be checking for fetal abnormalities, that would be a high-risk pregnancy. I was speaking of normal low-risk pregnancies, which do not need an ultrasound (unless there is indication), they may seem common, but they are not necessary.

I also know several people (my sister being one) whose health insurance companies would not pay for an ultrasound because they had no indication of risk, so health insurance paying for it or not depends on your carrier (just like every other medical procedure) and that has no bearing on whether it’s necessary for low-risk pregnancies. Besides, it’s not like doctors haven’t fudged, if you will, to get a procedure paid for by insurance. I know plenty of doctors that would say there is an indication for ultrasound just to give the parents piece of mind and a memento of the pregnancy (I’m not arguing right or wrong here, just saying

Obviously you don’t believe me, so would you take the word of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) instead?

From ob-ultrasound.net:

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Family Physicians advised against routine screening unless there is medical justification.� (emphasis mine) See their website or the AAFP website for more info.

And I think you misunderstood the other quote--it's true, ultrasounds aren't commonly done in early pregnancy, but when they are, the vaginal probe is commonly used.

You are right; I probably misread that. I was a little mystified by her idea that a forced, unnecessary vaginal ultrasound shouldn’t seem anymore invasive than a medical procedure to which a woman has consented and I let that color my reading of the rest of the comment. Sorry for misreading you on the last part, kat.

The only reason I would recommend ultrasound is to screen for placenta previa. Hijack conversation here.

There is no reason to do it in early pregnancy unless the date is unsure. As for later pregnancy, the reason the 20 wk date is chosen is because the sex organs are visible, and most people want to know the gender. Yes, technicians do look for abnormalities and do further dating, but this is really to see the genitalia for most parents.

Ultrasound is definitely not required, especially if no tests indicated abnormalities, and if the mother would not consider a late term abortion. We are talking 20 weeks here.

I tried posting a comment but my computer crashed, I can't see it skiming through the comments so I'm going to retype it.

My First statement is I'm horrorfied at the idea that the government can even consider making a woman insert objects into her body against her will(which is the difference between the wand-o-doom and the medical tools used in an abortion, she had agreed to the later)

As a woman who has been raped and have had to have the vaginal ultra-sound done on me several times for various reasons, one being ovarian cysts, the other being complications from the rape(yeah, gotta love that one). I have PTSD really badly from my repeated sexual assaults that involved the person raping me sticking objects in me, so despite trying to keep cool, I went into a sobing hysterical mess, even more so because it hurt me a great deal. part of this I understand to be from what was done to me as I have never experianced intercourse without the pain and what not(again, thus why the test was being done)but yeah it was a horrible tramatic experiance esp as there have been times they didnt have a female ultra sound person working that day so I had to deal with the man doing it.

I would like to say to some of the people commenting that just because it didn't hurt when you had it done, doesn't make those of us who have had pain when it was happening weaklings or wussys. I think size issues can be ligit. esp for a virgin or someone who hasn't used that part of their body much yet. I remember my first exams they had to hunt down the pediactric kit to find tools small enough that it didn't hurt me.

Thinking about all that, I again have to say how discusting it is to think that men have the right to even phathom this kind of thing. Ive had guys go "oh well we have to do the turn your head and cough thing" and I'm sure that its uncomfortable but its hard to compare that to pap smears, ultra-sounds,breast exam machines and so on so forth. To tell a woman she has to allow an object inside her and to force her to see what shes about to get rid of will do nothing but tramatise the women who struggled long and hard over the choice they had just made. I know a few women who had abortions that why they know it was the best choice they could have made at that point, it doesnt change the sence of loss and wonder of "what if" kind of thing. All this would do is add to those womens distress over the situation.

What a horrible horrible bill... horrible horrible men....

just... bla....

even just writing this triggered me..

augh

woops.I found my old comment thanks to GopherII. I elaborated though, so I hope I can keep both.

Oh and GopherII,
My nickname is from Lord of the Rings. My friends and I are really into Tolkien and I got nicknamed Grima and it's kind of stuck. Even my College professors call me Grima. It's not in anyway a derogitory or negative name, just to clarify:)

I am a woman who is pro-life and I find this bill disgusting.

Help me out here :

"health care workers who refuse to perform a medical procedure (i.e. abortion, or a pap smear on a single woman)"

Pap smear ? there are medics who refuse to do *pap smears*?!? Oh my...

My ob/gyn never asked if as was married (not gonna happen...), only if I was sexually active and in what way. I have a pap test done every two years or so, and I don't even have to ask for it!

But then again, I live in France.

Keep up the fight!

"I would like to say to some of the people commenting that just because it didn't hurt when you had it done, doesn't make those of us who have had pain when it was happening weaklings or wussys."

I totally agree.

"Ive had guys go 'oh well we have to do the turn your head and cough thing' and I'm sure that its uncomfortable but its hard to compare that to pap smears, ultra-sounds,breast exam machines and so on so forth."

Exactly! Also, speaking of ultrasounds and mammography, I've heard of women having ultrasounds on their breasts to screen for cancer instead of mammorgams. Anyone here know how true that is?

ShelbyWoo--all prenatal testing is optional, from chorionic villus sampling, to the amnio, to ultrasounds. The fact that they're optional doesn't mean health insurance companies won't pay for them under the right circumstances--meaning, the woman having risk factors. I doubt most insurance companies would pay for an amnio for a healthy 24 year old woman with no risk factors.

I'm not a doctor or medical professional, I'm just a woman in the middle of a high risk pregnancy. That said, I don't know if the 20 week ultrasound is covered under the quote you made--there is medical justification for that ultrasound, to look for abnormalities to check for placenta previa. As far as I know, it's the only way to check for placenta previa. My mom nearly died from placenta previa in the days before ultrasounds, my baby brother did die. Most cases of placenta previa spontaneously correct themselves, but it's still a very dangerous condition, and it's very medically necessary to check for it. If your sister's health insurance refused to pay for the 20 week ultrasound, they're out of line--but then there are plenty of health insurance companies that refuse to pay for necessary tests, or refuse to pay for birth control while happily covering Viagra. They make little sense.

Women ask for ultrasounds all the time just because they want to see their babies, and I have to say it's pretty cool to see what's going on in there, especially before you feel movement. Also, there are independent ultrasound "suites" out there that will take what they call 3D photos and video as keepsakes. I think that's more what they're referring to in your quote, not the 20 week ultrasound. Personally, I think those 3D ultrasounds are creepy looking. But I will ask my OB later this week, as I go for my (medically justified) amnio.

>>>>But transvaginal ultrasounds aren't any more invasive than abortion, which also requires sticking implements in there, no?

This bill requires that a woman have something inserted into her vagina and then be forced to view the U/S for no other reason than to have someone point out the fetal heartbeat and movements…yes, that is much more invasive than a wanted abortion. Even if a U/S is required to determine fetal age, why would a vaginal U/S ever be necessary? If the fetus is too small to determine the age with a regular U/S, then, obviously, the pregnancy is in the 1st trimester. That’s all the clinician needs to know. As FEMily pointed out, no woman carrying her pregnancy to term is required to view an U/S, why force a woman who wants to end the pregnancy?

And it is true that vaginal ultrasounds are commonly used in early pregnancy.

Vaginal ultrasounds in early pregnancy are only necessary if you are high-risk. Otherwise, vaginal U/S’s aren’t “commonly used in early pregnancy." As a matter of fact, a woman with a low-risk pregnancy really shouldn't have anymore than one ultrasound, generally done for "vanity" purposes - i.e. a picture of the fetus for the parent(s), after 20 weeks.

I think you misread me.

First of all, I know ultrasounds aren't common in early pregnancy, but when one is needed (like in my situation, when we thought I might be miscarrying), vaginal ultrasounds are the norm.

And second, I totally object to the idea of women being forced to have an ultrasound before an abortion. It's ridiculous. But I think arguing that the law specified a vaginal ultrasound is a red herring. The real issue is the ultrasound, period.

I've heard of women having ultrasounds on their breasts to screen for cancer instead of mammorgams. Anyone here know how true that is?

Mina--Yes, I've had an ultrasound on my breasts, but it was after a mammogram. I have very dense breasts with lots of benign cysts, and it was impossible to get a good picture using a mammogram. (I'm fine.) This was my baseline mammogram a couple of years ago, I was scheduled for my first "regular" one (it took almost two months to get an appt) but I got pregnant so we put it off. I tried to talk them into letting me go straight to the ultrasound, because I figured they'd need to do it again, as mammograms hurt, but that's not the procedure. There are digital mammograms available at some centers, I might look into that when I'm ready to go later this year.

The point being that ultrasounds are used for a lot of things, it's a painless and inexpensive (compared to other methods) way to image the inside of your body. I've had them for my breasts, to look at my pregnancy, to look for ovarian cysts, to look for gallstones, and to image my pancreas via an endoscope.

To the women posting about how painless/not traumatic/cool/whatever else their transvaginal ultrasounds were:

BIG. FUCKING. DEAL. NOBODY CARES.

I know I'm being harsh, but for shit's sake. You people are all smart enough and old enough to understand that your experience in this world is not equal to everyone else's experience! Some people, be they rape victims or not, are absolutely horrified at the thought of having a procedure like this done. Whether you think it's "not that bad" is completely and utterly irrelevant. For some people the experience really will be that bad.

But transvaginal ultrasounds aren't any more invasive than abortion, which also requires sticking implements in there, no?
Ah, so because a woman chooses to have one specific instrument stuck in her vagina, why not just stick anything else up there as well? YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GREAT!

all prenatal testing is optional, from chorionic villus sampling, to the amnio, to ultrasounds...If your sister's health insurance refused to pay for the 20 week ultrasound, they're out of line--but then there are plenty of health insurance companies that refuse to pay for necessary tests

It seems as though you just aren't paying attention to what I am saying. I am not talking about the woman opting out of a U/S. I am saying, very clearly, that is not a necessary or recommended procedure for low-risk pregnancies. Again, I talking about low-risk pregnancies with no medical indications (medical indications would come from the other recommended prenatal tests). . That's straight from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), who are medical professionals and doctors. I also get the same information from the Ultrasound Techs that I work with.
And, no, the insurance company was not out out-of-line as my sister and the others I spoke of because they all had low-risk, healthy pregnancies and, following the guidelines set forth by the ACOG, there were no medical indications making an ultrasound un necessary. I have many, many issues with private, for-profit health insurance providers, but denying a claim for a superfluous procedure isn't one of them.

Also, there are independent ultrasound "suites" out there that will take what they call 3D photos and video as keepsakes. I think that's more what they're referring to in your quote, not the 20 week ultrasound.

Actually, no, those guidelines were set forth because of a study done in the mid-1990's, before 3D ultrasound.

At this point, it is obvious that you have made up your mind that I am wrong, so I am not going to derail the thread with it any longer. If you would like further information on it, please to the AAFP (www.aafp.org) website and check it out. Or, you can simply Google it: low-risky pregnancies + ultrasounds.

And, while you may find a 3-D ultrasound "creepy," they offer a much better picture of the fetus making it easier to see abnormalities and determine fetal age; 3D ultrasounds are a great advancement in the imaging field (frankly, those ultrasound boutiques should not be allowed to operate since they are exposing women and their developing fetuses to radiation for no medical reasons whatsoever).

"To the women posting about how painless/not traumatic/cool/whatever else their transvaginal ultrasounds were:

BIG. FUCKING. DEAL. NOBODY CARES.

I know I'm being harsh, but for shit's sake. You people are all smart enough and old enough to understand that your experience in this world is not equal to everyone else's experience! Some people, be they rape victims or not, are absolutely horrified at the thought of having a procedure like this done. "

NekkidNancy,

As one of those accused of posting that I had no difficulty with my vaginal ultrasound you seem to have taken it out of context. If you wouldve read my comments I stated specifically:

"Ive had a vaginal probe for ovarian cysts and didnt have a problem with it at all. I found it interesting to witness my reproductive organs and actually see what was causing me so much pain.

However, it makes complete sense how a rape survivor could possibly have a negative effect from it and could trigger traumatic flashbacks. I cant believe how fucked this legislation is. It is completely disrespectful to women."

and then again to clarify....

Oops! My last post mightve made it seem I have no problem with vaginal probes unless youre raped, which is most certaintly NOT the case. I find it demeaning, and offensive, and actually a forced ultrasound would be tantamount to being raped by an object. My last post was simply to reassure anyone whose about to have a vaginal ultrasound (hopefully for legit reasons) that it is not painful for everyone."

I dont like the insinuation that I'm either A. bragging, B. being insensitive to rape victims, or C. overlooking individual body dimensions. I am simply stating that not ALL women have bad experiences with vaginal probes. My concern is if youre a young woman and you have a vaginal ultrasound scheduled sometimes in the near future and you read simply the personal bad experiences of women defining it as negative, ect that you will have a difficult time. For example, I knew a woman who after being told by another friend that pap smears are going to hurt she had a bad experience with her first pap.When she told her new doctor (a woman) about pap smears hurting, the Dr. said it shouldnt hurt unless the doctor is doing it wrong. She had another pap by the new doctor and it didnt bother her. She thinks the hullaballoo surrounding her first pap mightve exaggerated the ordeal and made her tense up - just dont want that happening to any readers out there.

EG: "They could put up signs saying "It is against the law for anybody, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you either to have an abortion or to continue a pregnancy against your will." That would fulfill the law and be a good thing."

Sadly, though, if Oklahoma has parental consent/notification laws, it's not true. In those cases, a parent really can force their daughter to continue the pregnancy.

EG: "They could put up signs saying "It is against the law for anybody, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you either to have an abortion or to continue a pregnancy against your will." That would fulfill the law and be a good thing."

Sadly, though, if Oklahoma has parental consent/notification laws, it's not true. In those cases, a parent really can force their daughter to continue the pregnancy.

"EG: 'They could put up signs saying 'It is against the law for anybody, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you either to have an abortion or to continue a pregnancy against your will.' That would fulfill the law and be a good thing.'

"Sadly, though, if Oklahoma has parental consent/notification laws, it's not true. In those cases, a parent really can force their daughter to continue the pregnancy."

It's also true whenever and wherever a pregnant girl doesn't have enough transportation options to get to an abortion provider without parental permission.

The vaginal probe ultrasound is unnecessary in my opinion. It's like saying,"haha not only do you have to deal with being raped but now you have to be invaded by your doctor!"

i think the last comment makes alot of sense. this is what i would do. I would definitely follow up on this.
health insurance quotes
free investing information
home improvement tips
free weightloss blog