You Don't Get To Mandate Unnecessary Medical Interventions, No Matter How Opposed You Are To Abortion
Michigan Republicans have introduced a bill requiring women to get a transvaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion, writes Sahil Kapur at TPM:
The legislation introduced Tuesday in the state House ensures the "performance of a diagnostic ultrasound examination of the fetus at least two hours before an abortion is performed" and requires her to sign a consent form prior to the abortion. The bill was introduced by state Rep. Joel Johnson (R) and cosponsored by 22 fellow lawmakers.
I have to sign a consent form before they clean my teeth at the dentist, let alone get medical care, but these forms are for the practitioner's protection, and put out by them voluntarily, not by the state.
Katie Carey, a spokeswoman for Michigan's House Democratic Leader Tim Greimel, categorically said the bill would mandate transvaginal ultrasounds for women before an abortion."This is an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion into the health decisions of women," Greimel told TPM in a statement. "This is yet another example of the Republican obsession with overregulating people's private lives."
The bill requires the use of ultrasound equipment "providing the most visibly clear image of the gross anatomical development of the fetus and the most audible fetal heartbeat." As a practical matter, that requires transvaginal ultrasounds, said Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
"It does lay bare that the real motive is to make abortion providers continue to acquire more and more and more equipment before they're even eligible to perform an abortion," Crane told TPM. "They're trying to make it harder for doctors to do their jobs."
While the ultrasound is currently optional in Michigan, the proposed legislation would make it mandatory. After the ultrasound is conducted, women would have the option to obtain more information if they want it, Frederick said. Women would also have the option of declining to see the ultrasound images.
An ultrasound also costs money and adds cost to the abortion -- costs which legislators do not have the right to impose.
You're the bullshit party of small government if you want big government whenever it suits your principles.
I think abortion is creepy, but I think it should be legal -- and performed as early as possible in a pregnancy.
Its a simple enough fix, when it goes out of committee alter it to make funding of all of it the sole fiscal responsibility of the legislators who vote for it
lujlp at February 7, 2013 6:34 AM
"the sole fiscal responsibility of the legislators who vote for it"
I agree, but not limiting it just to this but to all laws.
I've had several discussion on this topic, usually with people who are as nanny state as can be. For whom this is the one and only time it shouldn't happen. But they don't see they hypocracy.
To use Amys dentistry example, to have a crown done, I was required 3 exrays, one before, one in the middle of it and one after the temp crown was added. Each adds expense, but it is required by my insurance. Not sure if state requires it, maybe they require one. Personally I like the idea of the Dr having a picture of the area he is working on, before he puts sharp objects into me. But I want it to me my, or the one paying the bills choice.
The problem I have is when people are fine with every other invasion of the gov't except this one.
Joe j at February 7, 2013 9:40 AM
I think a better fix is to get government out of the business of abortion all together. They shouldn't be funding it, they should't be subsidizing it, and they shouldn't be regulating it, Early abortions should be by RU 486, and late term ones should be expensive and rare.
Isab at February 7, 2013 10:01 AM
Perhaps it's time for a bill which requires the proposing legislator to submit to a public prostate exam on the floor of the legislature when putting forward a bill that imposes mandatory medical tests on others.
Factual Interjection at February 7, 2013 10:02 AM
I think the government should be out of the business of abortion, healthcare, marriage, food, slothes, education, and all aspects of personal choices.
I am 100% confident that if they weren't involved as they are now, we'd be far better off as a country.
Sabrina at February 7, 2013 10:20 AM
*clothes
Sabrina at February 7, 2013 10:21 AM
Getting an ultrasound is actually beneficial to the provider. It helps determine placement of fetal anatomy, fetal location, and gestational age. All of these have direct bearing on which method is the better option, reducing complications, etc.
BunnyGirl at February 7, 2013 10:50 AM
I can see that, Bunnygirl, and don't undervalue it, but again, that should be decided between the provider and the patient. The government has no business in the hospital room when it comes to patient/doctor procedure decisions.
Sabrina at February 7, 2013 11:07 AM
The government may have no business in the hospital room, but it's right there alright and only going to be taking up more room. Obamacare wil soon BE your Dr.
I think women should have to look at pictures (ex-utero) of fetus's at whatever gestational age they are, personally, before aborting. Seeing little legs smaller than crayons might eliminate that "clump of cells" rationalization real quick.
It's not going to stop the "yes it's a baby, but moms rights come first" crowd, but at least they're on more scientifically sound ground.
momof4 at February 7, 2013 12:42 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/02/07/you_dont_get_to_3.html#comment-3595452">comment from momof4I think women should have to look at pictures (ex-utero) of fetus's at whatever gestational age they are, personally, before aborting.
I think women "should" if their mother or another person can persuade them that they should. The state has ZERO business mandating this.
Amy Alkon at February 7, 2013 12:47 PM
If the state is the one paying, either directly or indirectly, partially or totally, I think they ought to be able to mandate anything they want ("they" in this case refers to the legislature)
If you don't like their involvement pay cash or buy private insurance that pays for it.
Isab at February 7, 2013 1:29 PM
I miss the days when "row vs. wade" was an argument about crossing the river.
The political Left disingenuously cloaks abortion as a medical "procedure" and "women's healthcare issue" rather than the ending by force of something that could develop into an actual human being.
At no time do abortion proponents engage in a frank discussion of the moral implications of ending a potential human life and the myriad tiny wounds such a thing may leave on both the psyche of the person undergoing it and on the collective psyche of all of us. To do so would indicate that the abortion opponents' arguments might have some merit.
However, they'll willingly discuss the moral implications of eating veal. Meat may be murder, but abortion is a "procedure."
Like children covering their ears and talking non-stop to drown out the voices they don't want to hear, abortion proponents loudly insist that this is a vital women's health procedure - on the same par as mammograms - and is something about which no man is allowed to have an opinion (except to agree with them).
Any opposition to abortion (on any grounds) is denounced as a "war on women" and an infringement on the healthcare rights of women - and the abortion opponent is branded a misogynist, a sexist, and an all-around really bad egg.
So, is anyone surprised that abortion opponents (who maintain that abortion is willful murder), having seen abortion turned into a healthcare issue instead of a moral one, are trying to use the law to force people to give their viewpoint a hearing before having this "procedure" done?
Before accepting the argument that the state has no business mandating an ultrasound, consider whether the state has any business mandating that the costs for this "procedure" be covered by insurance companies or subsidized by the state's taxpayers.
And then consider whether abortion should be banned outright (immoral or not) and what the consequences of that would be.
And then consider the potential consequences of abortion on demand.
And then sit down and contemplate that the world is a much more morally ambiguous place than the two sides of this argument would have you believe (hint: that's why we invented religion all those lonely nights ago).
And then contemplate that we've reached the point at which we are no longer having enough children to replenish the population of our country.
Conan the Grammarian at February 7, 2013 4:14 PM
> If the state is the one paying, either directly
> or indirectly, partially or totally, I think
> they ought to be able to mandate anything they
> want ("they" in this case refers to the
> legislature)
>
> If you don't like their involvement pay cash or
> buy private insurance that pays for it.
'Zackly. See also and also.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 7, 2013 10:12 PM
> we've reached the point at which we are no longer
> having enough children to replenish the
> population of our country.
Who cares? Post-20th America was always going to be about immigration.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 7, 2013 10:13 PM
Isab, I don't disagree with that. At all. If the government (aka: taxpayers) are the ones footing the bill, they have every business mandating how that money is to be spent. However, I am of the opinion that there should never be any taxpayer money used for personal medical procedures. Ever. Like I said, the government has no place in the hospital room.
What drives me batty about the pro vs. against abortion arguments is how no one looks at it from a purely financial standpoint. It's always about "womens rights" from the left or the moral argument against it by the right. Both of those are debateable. (What makes the womens rights more important that the mans? Who is the government to decide what's moral? etc...)However, you feel about it, one cannot reasonably argue that a prodedure of this type should ever be tax payer funded. I hear the words "it's a personal choice" when it comes to abortion all the time. Well, in my opinion, if it's YOUR choice to abort then it should come from YOUR wallet. The government should never be this deeply involved in any "personal choice". However, if you are accepting government money for your personal choice, then you really have no right bitching when they put some limitations on it. It's not your money. You don't get a say.
Sabrina at February 8, 2013 5:07 AM
"At no time do abortion proponents engage in a frank discussion of the moral implications of ending a potential human life"
FUCK POTENTIAL HUMAN LIFE, there is quite frankly far too much actual human life on the planet as it is. I swear to god if I could push a button and randomly kill 75% of the earth population I would.
As for the abortion debate I always begin with two questions.
1. Do you believe there should be an exception for rape and incest.
If the answer to that question is yes there is no point in debate because such a person doesnt give a fuck about potential human life, its about punishing whores for having sex.
2. Do you think there should be an exception for cases where the mothers life is in danger, more so than the regular trials of gestation.
If the answer is no, again there is no point in debate as it is an ideological point with them and the fact that dead mother = dead baby anyway is not the point (what the fuck IS the point for such people I've no idea
lujlp at February 8, 2013 4:20 PM
late to the comments with this, and actually just found scalzi's satiric letter yesterday...still reading the comments on his post but this definitely applies to this topic...
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/
Could not express the "keep your laws off my body" reason why any better myself...
pat at February 9, 2013 1:37 AM
should have warned that Scalzi's satirical JAR post is quite disturbing...(he does post a warning for rape survivors) so read at your own risk if you are a right-wing asshat who does not want your tidy view of what you believe to be the way precious new sacred life comes into being be ruffled.
pat at February 9, 2013 1:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/02/07/you_dont_get_to_3.html#comment-3596614">comment from patRapists END up having control in the way he says, but as is typical, he states the party line rather than what the evidence says -- that rape is PRIMARILY a crime about sex, which is why the women primarily raped are young and fertile. See Thornhill/Palmer reference here.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/01/28/weenie-think.html
Amy Alkon at February 9, 2013 5:56 AM
Leave a comment