Trans-vaginal Probes Courtesy of the GOP The "Small Government" Folks!!!!

So, does the title of this thread make you a little uncomfortable, maybe just a little? Well imagine going to your doctor in the state of Virginia and seeking a perfectly legal medical procedure as decided by the Supreme Court and having the State of Virginia Government legislate that you must, for no medical reason whatsoever, be subjected to a trans-vaginal ultrasound before you can wait another few days and then get the medical procedure you came in for. This is the law Republicans are actually passing in the state of Virginia!

Let’s see, if big government tries to force you to have health care, that bad but if big government is forcing you to have a medically unnecessary inter-vaginal probe, that good. I can’t think of a more intrusive big government legislation than forcing a woman to be vaginally probed for absolutely no valid medical reason. Shame on you hypocrites.

That's right, the same people who say government has no business forcing people to buy health insurance, the same people who think a woman's boss should have the final say in her health care, have passed a bill in Virginia that would force woman seeking an abortion to submit to a trans-vaginal ultrasound. The Democrats in Virginia tried to add an amendment that would allow for less invasive forms of ultrasound but the Republicans would have none of it. They want the penetration. Governor Bob McDonell (a contender for the V.P. position) says he will sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

 

View attachment 381 Hey ladies! Meet your new best friend.

 

What exactly does the "trans-vaginal" (across the vagina) or the "inter-vaginal" (among the vagina) thing do?

 

It is an internal ultrasound procedure which essentially is like any other ultrasound except that the doctor must penetrate the patient rather than the type you normally see on TV where they smear lubrication on your skin and produce images. The law passed or is about to pass specifically identifies this intrusive type of ultrasound rather than the external type and there is absolutely no medical reason to do any type of ultrasound in the first place.

 

I did a bit more research on trans-vaginal ultrasounds:

From the National Institute of Health:

The test is usually painless, although some women may have mild discomfort from the pressure of the probe. Only a small part of the probe is placed into the vagina.

From Wikipedia:

Transvaginal imaging utilizes a higher frequency imaging, which gives better resolution of the ovaries, uterus and endometrium (the fallopian tubes are generally not seen unless distended), but is limited to depth of image penetration, whereas larger lesions reaching into the abdomen are better seen transabdominally.

Just playing Devil's Advocate on this issue, but if the woman is going to have a medical procedure done doesn't it make better health sense, strictly looking at it from a medical viewpoint, to have an ultrasound that gives better resolution of the ovaries, uterus, etc.?

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003779.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvaginal_ultrasound

 

I'll leave that determination to people in the medical profession. They didn't feel that it was necessary before this law so I have to imagine there is still no point to doing it now.

Obviously, the bigger question here is why would they even legislate an unnecessary medical procedure using the most intrusive method available. I seriously can't imagine that the legislature did this because it made better health sense considering the medical profession doesn't believe it is necessary.

 

From the National Institute of Health:

Transvaginal ultrasound may be done for the following problems:

• Abnormal findings on a physical exam, such as cysts, fibroid tumors, or other growths
• Abnormal vaginal bleeding and menstrual problems
• Certain types of infertility
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Pelvic pain

From the American Pregnancy Association:

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg attaches itself in a place other than inside the uterus. Almost all ectopic pregnancies occur in a fallopian tube, and are thus sometimes called tubal pregnancies. The fallopian tubes are not designed to hold a growing embryo; the fertilized egg in a tubal pregnancy cannot develop normally and must be treated. An ectopic pregnancy happens in 1 out of 50 pregnancies.

Again, looking at this from a Devil's Advocate point-of-view, if an ectopic pregnancy happens in 1 out 50 pregnancies, it seems that an ultrasound should be medically necessary simply from the standpoint of a woman's health issues.

Here is a doctor discussing the issue:

 

Do you honestly believe that this legislation is being passed to insure the health of the woman when even the medical profession doesn't consider it necessary for women seek abortions? This has nothing to do with ectopic pregnancies. The law doesn't even mention them. This is specifically for women seeking abortions.

 

Is it an "abortion" or is it a "medical procedure"? Regardless, I'm concerned about the woman's health. If a woman is pregnant there are certainly health issues involved and of that I'm certain you would agree. The doctor referenced above stated they're necessary. I'm sure some doctors would agree with her while some would disagree. I'm not a doctor so I can't say whether they're medically necessary or not.

Doesn't it make sense, however, to do everything feasible to ensure the woman's health? Seriously, with 1 in 50 pregnancies being an ectopic pregnancy, that's a LOT of ectopic pregnancies occurring even as we speak. Doesn't it make sense that if a woman is going to have a speculum, tenaculum, suction devices, vacuum tubes and rods inserted inside her to perform a medical procedure it would be understandable to have a small portion of a trans-vaginal ultrasound device inserted also to adequately check for health issues?

 

Regardless of you "concerns", no other medical procedure is being singled out for this special treatment except abotion procedures. If they were actually concerned about womens health, and even given the fact that one Republican legislator called abortion a "lifestyle convenience" during the debate, the idea that the legislators know better than the medical professionals, is, well laughable.

In the end, this will of course be struck down as a viscous attack on women's reproductive rights and probably put the final nail in what is left of the extreme fringes of the Right-wing.

Do you believe that government should legislate this procedure with no medical need whatsoever and all for what is a pretty ideologically driven attack on a woman's Supreme Court dictated right to seek an abortion? She a woman be forcible probed in your opinion? Does that fact that language was introduced in order to get permission from the female patients before being probed and was rejected by the Republicans matter to you?

 

I have no doubt that my concerns for women's health are at least equal to your "concerns". Abortion is a very unique medical procedure which requires special treatment.

I believe many women opt for abortions for reasons other than medical necessity. There are women who are embarrassed or simply don't want the responsibility of rearing a child. What might a better term be?

Your previous prognostications have been anything but successful, so I'm not putting any stock in your latest prediction either.

I haven't been convinced that there is "no medical need whatsoever". As I've pointed out, a trans-vaginal ultrasound gives doctors a much improved view of the internal reproductive system which can help them diagnose any possible dangers including ectopic pregnancies. This would definitely be a benefit to women's health.

You asked, "Should a woman be forcibly probed in your opinion"? A woman is "forcibly probed" whenever she receives an abortion. Even if one goes in for any surgery, say a heart stint, they're forcibly probed, as it were. If I go in for a heart stint, I really couldn't care less to know all the tools and devices used. I trust the doctor to use whatever is necessary for my health and well-being. Before the surgery, if the doctor wants to run a tube down my throat to check for something, so be it. If the doctor says the tube will allow him to see any blocked passageways that could interfere with the heart stint, I'd say I'm better off for it. I would say that if the state mandated that doctors perform a tubal insertion before heart stint surgery due to botched, deadly, back-alley heart stint surgeries then we, as a society, are better off.

So, not to argue with you or put a partisan slant on this discussion, I'm simply not convinced that the procedure is "medically unnecessary".

 

Call me old fashioned but I would prefer that I, in consultation with my doctor, decide what is medically necessary or unnecessary for me...rather than some legislator taking that power from me for themselves.

And I would hope everyone else would have that same freedom to decide for themselves also.

 

Whether you are against or for abortion rights, this is no way to try and solve the issue. I think this is another case of Right-wing overreach that will backfire on these folks and they'll sit around clueless wondering why people turned against them. Catering to the most extreme out of touch sector of society will not work out well for them in the long run and the backlash is going to be epic.
I know this law will be defended by certain folks here but I'd like to know what exactly justifies this completely unnecessary government mandated medical procedure that simply couldn't be more intrusive while at the same time complaining that they shouldn't have to be forced to buy health care. If they were consistent, they'd condemn this law along with the rest of us.

Now I’m going on vacation and you guys can carry on or not. I’m sure that you won’t disappoint.

 

Have a nice time and dont forget a postcard

 

The people in Virginia are stuck in a time warp. I mean..you're talking about Jerry Falwell land, and his brain dead cult followers...

 

Transvaginal probe. Hum? Maybe I should veto that. But my colleagues in the State Senate and the State House passed it overwhelmingly. Should I go along with them or look down the road to the VP nomination? Hum? I do like the idea of putting government between a woman and her doctor and you just gotta love forcing a woman to take one for the team if you disagree with her legal right to seek an abortion. Yeah, it's all good but what the hell, that VP spot is pretty sweet. Ah heck! VETO ............Damn!

~Bob McDonnell

 

This case goes back to the argument over State law versus Federal law... which has the greater right to exist. IMO, a State oversteps it's rights when it creates a law that conflicts with Federal law. On the Federal level, I'd be looking to see if that were true in this case. If I found it was, I'd take steps to have the law striken or otherwise removed.

 

This silly ass law would have been overturned anyway at great cost to the state of Virginia and probably will be even in its watered down form but you have made me think about state power vs. federal power. It seems that the states can be easily as heavy-handed as the federal government depending on who is running the state. If the Republican Tea Party governors have proven nothing else in the last year and a half they have proven that the state power is just as dangerous as federal power.
Look at the 1958 Loving case that happened in Virginia. An interracial couple Perry and Mildred Loving were convicted by the state of Virginia for violating the state's ban on interracial marriage based on the opinion that God put Asians on one continent, blacks on another continent, and white people on anther continent. The state ended up banning the couple from the state until the Supreme Court overturned the state's decision 9 to nothing. Point being that state power is just as or even more dangerous than federal power.

 

Geez...I thought what the right wanted was for government to get out! Looks like they really mean IS, to go IN!

 

Perv