Perry proposes mandatory sonograms

Okay, I know I'm hoping for the impossible but let's see if we can keep this one civil. I'm posing the following questions to all but am hoping that some of the ladies will chime in since this proposed bill affects women the most.

So Governor Perry is proposing legislation that would require a woman to have a sonogram before receiving an abortion.

My questions are:

1. Is this a bad idea and if so why?

2. Is this different than a doctor requesting a MRI, X-ray, camera scope or ultrasound before doing any other invasive procedure? In my experience doctors usually order these and then discuss the results with their patients before moving ahead with the procedure/operation. Should an abortion be different and if so, why?

Let's try to keep it civil. I understand it's a sensitive subject but I'm curious about how people view this proposed legislation.

You're two Legislative sessions late and a dollar short, man. He already passed that in Texas. Yesterday, the court threw most it out, including all the sonogram requirements.

As long as Roe v Wade is the law of the land, it will never be approved on a national level. I hope he pushes it on the national stage, though. His inevitable rejection by the people will be hastened.

This has nothing to do with the health of the mother or child. Simply a political power struggle and has no business in a "free" society, especially as defined by Perry and his followers.

How can you be for less government control yet mandate sonograms? You can't have it both ways, Mofo!

That's Verry Perry. SCERRY!

You're a day late and a dollar short, man. He already passed that in Texas. Yesterday, the court threw it out.

As long as Roe v Wade is the law of the land, it will never be approved on a national level.

This has nothing to do with the health of the mother or child. Simply a political power struggle and has no business in a "free" society, especially as defined by Perry and his followers.

How can you be for less government control yet mandate sonograms? You can't have it both ways, Mofo!

That's Verry Perry. SCERRY! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It was my understanding that the law wasn't going to take effect until today prior to it being struck down yesterday.

From what I found:

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down key provision of Texas’ new law requiring a doctor to perform a sonogram before an abortion, ruling that the measure violates the free speech rights of both doctors and patients.


U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks said in his ruling that requiring a doctor to show women images from the sonogram and the sounds of the fetal heartbeat violates the First Amendment rights of doctors.

How does this apply to the First Amendment right of Doctors?

I'm also still curious to why some would consider this such a big deal vs what usually takes place prior to an invasive procedure?

How can you be for less government control yet mandate sonograms? You can't have it both ways.! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

+1

The bill was passed into law and signed by the governor; hence it was no longer proposed but adopted.

I thought it was a horrible mandate on physicians, but no more so than any other mandated immunizations. In my opinion, not an infringement on their First Amendment rights at all. It's real important that every profession is regulated, either internally or through government oversight. Unfortunately some aren't, and taxpayers tend to take it up the ass. Various forms of insurance, for example.

Naw, to me, this was designed and presented as a way to discourage abortion. If anything, it's a mandate against a woman's right to choose and a societal reminder that abortion is wrong. That's a little stronger than a warning on the side of a cigarette pack.

I have no problem with a physician directed sonogram if it's deemed medically necessary. But that's not what this law was about. Nor was it ever.

I'm also still curious to why some would consider this such a big deal vs what usually takes place prior to an invasive procedure? Originally Posted by DTorrchia

I'll take this one. It's because it should be the doctor's prerogative and not government's to decide which medical tests are necessary.

The bill was passed into law and signed by the governor; hence it was no longer proposed but adopted.

My mistake, adopted not proposed.

I thought it was a horrible mandate on physicians, but no more so than any other mandated immunizations. In my opinion, not an infringement on their First Amendment rights at all. It's real important that every profession is regulated, either internally or through government oversight. Unfortunately some aren't, and taxpayers tend to take it up the ass. Various forms of insurance, for example.

Naw, to me, this was designed and presented as a way to discourage abortion. If anything, it's a mandate against a woman's right to choose and a societal reminder that abortion is wrong. That's a little stronger than a warning on the side of a cigarette pack.

Explain how it's a mandate against a woman's right to choose?
Let's say you have a tumor. They do an ultrasound, sonogram, CAT scan, whatever the case may be. The doctor shows you the tumor and recommends a course of action. You are free to say yes or no to that course of action. It's completely your choice. Why would it be different in the case of abortion? The woman sees the sonogram and then makes the decision whether or not to proceed with the abortion.

I have no problem with a physician directed sonogram if it's deemed medically necessary. But that's not what this law was about. Nor was it ever. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

For the record, I have not said that I'm "for" or "against". I'm simply inquiring as to how both sides view this. So no contradiction exists between wanting less government and advocating a sonogram because I'm still on the fence on this issue.

I'll take this one. It's because it should be the doctor's prerogative and not government's to decide which medical tests are necessary. Originally Posted by Booth

Interesting. I'm certainly no expert on abortions so my next question would be...Do Doctors who provide abortions normally conduct a sonogram first?
If not, why? They certainly seem to perform a litany of different tests for most minor and major other procedures. Is that why some felt this law was necessary?
Like I said, I don't follow the abortion debate to closely and I'm certainly no zealot when it comes to either side of this subject.

I think it has more to do with guilt than medical necessity. Its sole purpose would be to dissuade women from having abortions.

I'm no medical expert either so if someone knows otherwise let's hear it.

If it is a medical necessity it will be done. This is about trying to guilt the woman into not having an abortion because it requires her to see it or have it described to her. Neither of which is necessary for a medical procedure.

I think most people agree that abortion is not a disirable thing and if a woman is going to make that choice it should be done early in the pregnancy or not at all. The question becomes how to minimize the number of times a woman chooses to have an abortion. The way to do that is to provide her with good alternatives and support during the pregnancy. These things can be enabled and encouraged by the government but the government cannot do them well and should not try. Things like the sonogram law are an inappropriate and more importantly ineffective government intrusion.

Interesting. I'm certainly no expert on abortions so my next question would be...Do Doctors who provide abortions normally conduct a sonogram first?
If not, why? They certainly seem to perform a litany of different tests for most minor and major other procedures. Is that why some felt this law was necessary?
Like I said, I don't follow the abortion debate to closely and I'm certainly no zealot when it comes to either side of this subject.
Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Again, this was NOT supported by the medical community. But it was strongly advocated for by Sen. Dan Patrick of Houston (makes Perry look like a liberal) and Perry himself. By discouraging legal abortion, the anti-choice zealots are in fact limiting a woman's right to determine what happens with her own body.

How about Perry's proposed mandate of HPV immunizations for fifth grade schoolgirls. ROUNDLY REJECTED. Only later (shortly later) was it discovered that only one pharma company manufactured the vaccine, Merck, and that Merck had contributed thousands of dollars to Perry's campaign.

You don't think Perry was actually trying to inoculate people against STDs, do you?

Looks like the only ladies you got any opinions from are disguised as dudes.

From a practical standpoint, if the goal is to have a clear high resolution image capable of detecting even small abnormalities, the choice should have been an MRI. They are, however, relatively expensive as one would expect from the gold standard of imaging ... yuk, yuk. A CT/CAT scan is cheaper but would have a reasonable degree of resolution. A sonogram is basically an ultrasound echo-based generated image, a distant far more sophisticated relative of a sonar trace. Compared to an MRI or CT/CAT scan the resolution is far inferior.

But there is another major difference. MRI and CT/CAT scans produce static still images. However, sonograms can be used to see motion and the images can be viewed as a "motion picture" and as such may show the fetus moving and changing position. The argument can be made, based on Perry's own personal publicly stated religious beliefs, that the goal of the legislation was not to assure the woman's health by possibly detecting any hidden abnormalities, otherwise a technique that generates a sharp image would have been required. Rather, it would seem that the goal of the requirement was to hopefully catch a bit of fetal movement, show the woman and perhaps influence or shame/guilt the woman into not aborting her fetus.

I am sure that a physician that suspected that the woman had specific medical risks would order some sort of imaging study to assure that they would be addressed. But if they were practicing defensive medicine to avoid a malpractice suit, it's not likely that their first choice would be to rely on a sonogram as an imaging study. From the standpoint of fiscal conservatism, it seems odd that a proponent of that view would want to require a mandatory medical screening procedure in all cases without regard for the physician's opinion on its medical necessity. It seems like an unfunded government mandate which would incrementally add to rising medical costs and expenditures for the health care system to absorb and pass on to everyone else.

I can't say I understand the reasoning. But then again, I still haven't had my waitress show up with my chips and queso.

O.k., I think we can all agree that the point of the sonogram, in Perry and other proponent's views, was to have the woman look at the images of the baby before choosing termination of the pregnancy. I can certainly see where this could have the possibility of adding distress to an already stressful situation. Again, I'm not a woman so I certainly don't feel qualified to put myself in their shoes.
I'm wondering though, is it possible that some who get the procedure aren't fully aware of, or potentially ignore what exactly is going on inside with the unborn fetus? If so, is asking them to take a look before they make such an important decision wrong? I'm not stating this as fact, I'm simply asking.
I think you guys have made some good points but in the end I think that maybe it takes a woman to truly answer this.

O.k., I think we can all agree that the point of the sonogram, in Perry and other proponent's views, was to have the woman look at the images of the baby before choosing termination of the pregnancy. Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Not quite. In most cases the sonogram would be done AFTER the woman has made the decision to terminate but before the procedure has taken place. It borders on torturing woman over what should be their own decision. It's really sick in my opinion.