Were you required to see them even if you didn't want to? By law?
Which is NOT what the law says. What part of a politician telling a woman that she MUST view an ultrasound of her fetus before she can get an abortion is NOT paternalistic, misogynist or an attempt at manipulation? Again this is not about a doctor being required to view an ultrasound for medical reasons, this is about a requirement on a patient.
Of course it's not a 100% chance of disability, but that wasn't my point. One of the major reasons you can't just say X weeks is the absolute cut off is that there is a lot of gray area. In addition, if a fetus is now "viable" but is only 24 weeks do you allow the woman to induce delivery so she can give birth and then abandon the child to the care of the state, or do you force her to carry it longer?

I'm making a second post with some data I did find.

I'm not saying restrict the information to the medical profession, I'm saying that medical professionals should make the decisions about medical care, not politicians (particularly not male politicians who REALLY have no right telling a woman what to do with her body). I'd rather that my medical care, whether abortions or surgery not go up for a public vote.

From preemie.info:
It looks like 23-25 weeks has had a lot of increases in survival rate, yet have a very broad range for chances of survival which suggests to me that this age is probably where a lot of the serious complications occur.

Facts about Induced Abortion
This site cites its sources well and appears to be relatively unbiased to me. They appear to be a legitimate site. It is dated Jan. 2011.
So when we talk about late term abortions, we're talking about less than 2% of all abortions.
So, in short, poorer women, women in their twenties, and women who have had at least one child represent the majority of women who have an abortion. The statistics about race are a bit confusing since there are likely more white women than there are black or hispanic women the numbers there are not proportional.

So, it is riskier to have a later term abortion, and even more so for a 'late-term' abortion. But money and the amount of time it takes to get an abortion are the primary reasons people had a "delay" in getting an abortion. That's across the board remember, not just for late-term abortions as that is only 2% of all abortions.

Is that you madmax? Still obsessed with Philly huh? You must have gotten your ass whooped, jumped, robbed, or something...LMMFAO!!!!

Shhh I'm waiting to hear more about how irresponsible my people are.

The part that bothers me about the ultrasound is that the woman cannot look away or close her eyes during the procedure. While the staging is really important, as you have said , for medical care and SHOULD be done, the woman should be allowed to look away or close here eyes if she so chooses.

That's the part that seems paternalistic, misogynistic, and manipulative to me. It's not the medical ultrasound: it's the fact that the law is attempting to make her change her mind by looking at the baby and its beating heart. It's a law designed to delay care and the person administering the ultrasound is required to make sure the patient watches the ultrasound the entire time.


(I, by the way, am not sure if I am pro-choice or pro-life, but this law just doesn't sit well with me.)

LOL really? He hailed a taxi and when it approached the license plate said "Fresh" and it had a game piece hanging from the mirror. If anything, he could see that this taxi was unusually but he thought "fugettabahdit" said said "take me home to Bel Air."

Every time I try and post weird stuff happens. This is my third attempt - if it doesn't work I give up. Drole - I know you aren't going to change my mind, and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change yours, so I don't want to continue to go back and forth. I am very familiar with your arguments - when I was avidly "pro-choice" I made them myself.

So back on topic - DF, if increased regulations aren't the answer, what should PA do as far as enforcing current ones? Should oversight go to another state/federal body?

Really. You think that as a lay person you can really look at a x-ray, CT, ultrasound and decide if you need a procedure? You are using the information given to you by the physician. The exam could be completely normal, especially in the case of US (which is very user dependent and results in pseudolesions especially in breast quite frequently), and if the MD told you it was abnormal, even another MD who isn't a radiologist wouldn't know they were wrong. How are you as an untrained person supposed to know what you are looking at? It may make you feel better that you saw all of your films, but for informed consent, it is completely unnecessary for a patient to see all of their studies before an exam. I get informed consent from patients 5 times a day and actually show patients their films very infrequently. When I do show it to them, they have no idea what they are looking at. If I wanted to, I could point anything out to them as an abnormality, and they'd have no idea I was wrong. At some point, you have to trust what your physician is telling you. Informed consent is about telling you the risks and benefits of the procedure, giving you alternatives for treatment and answering any questions you have. It's not about show and tell.

Exactly. I've had X-Rays to determine if I had irregularities related to a health condition. I didn't ask to look at the prints because I didn't need to. All I needed was the doctor to confirm that there were no irregularities and give me more details. Had I ended up needing a procedure, that wouldn't have changed. What am I going to see on that print that I NEED to see to make a decision? I would have no idea whatsoever what I was looking at either way. I do hope I am never in a position where I have to make the decision to have an abortion or not, but I do know seeing an ultrasound wouldn't be necessary to make the decision. And I absolutely object to being forced to see it. It IS MEANT to be manipulative. I was not forced to see my X-Ray, and wouldn't have been forced to see it even if I had needed a procedure. Why is this different?

I thought I was rather clear the first time I brought it up. However, see NYtimes. Some states require ultrasounds, Oklahoma passed a law requiring that the technicians describe the heart beat, the toes, etc and that they sign off that the woman was paying attention. It IS manipulative and paternalistic, and there's a reason that it only happens with abortion and not with a colonoscopy. Because people want to dissuade women from having an abortion, plain and simple.
Their data appears unmanipulated, at least from what I can see. I get that they're pro-access to abortion and birth control, but they also didn't have any scare facts on either side.

The law itself is indeed independant of those proposing it, however what makes violations of rights even more egregious is when the majority does it to the minority, when the powerful do it to the powerless. So while the OK ultrasound law is wrong because of the law itself, the fact that it was primarily written and supported by men adds to the insult. During the health care debate, when one male politician stated that HE didn't need maternity care so why should it be covered, he got smacked down royally by his fellow, female, politician. However it was wonderful evidence of the thought process that goes into the majority controlling care for the minority.

Additionally, there is a lot of research on black defendants and all white juries. So while you've reduced it to the ridiculous, there is concern about not adequately representing "peers" on the jury.

You stated "so the public can decide." My point was that the "public" shouldn't be deciding. Medical professionals should be advising government regulatory agencies on the level of safety required for care. The 'public' should not be able to vote to require flu shots to take place in a hospital or surgeries to take place at Walgreens any more than the public should be able to vote on the safety and regulation of abortion.

I'm not sure how you're connecting from A to B in what I'm saying and ending up with C.
Besides my desire for access to abortion, I'm not really sure how my comments are actually related to abortion itself. Were it any other medical procedure, I'd feel the same way. And that's why the distinctions between abortion and other medical procedures are so stark.

Figure out where they went wrong and fix it? Without having access to that information, and I don't want to read the grand jury reports for my own mental health, I can't give specifics. Luckily it's not my job to. But having worked in the state government before, I do believe that they're perfectly capable of fixing things and enforcing the laws currently in place and will probably have to make a lot of changes and report to the federal government in the process.

Great article - makes some points I would make (and some I wouldn't, but the writer has done his homework) but does it much more succinctly:

http://www.slate.com/id/2282166/

And I'm glad I've had doctors who didn't mind explaining to me, a mere layman but one with at least average intelligence, what was going on, indeed using "show and Tell". It was much easier for me to understand what was going on once I could see it.

This is really, REALLY post hoc and anecdotal, a pretty rough combination.

The purpose of the law isn't "educational" in the strictest and most commonly used sense. "See, the baby has toes!" isn't something used to teach a lesson or instruct the patient about the health of the child - it is clearly intended to push the mother toward keeping the fetus, even though it is not viable by any measurement, and clearly the law allows it to be aborted.

Unless you really think "poll tests" were intended to create a more educated electorate? Or "poll taxes" were viable methods to collect money?

I'm glad your experience was good, but yours was not the intent behind laws like Oklahoma's, and shaming women into keeping an unwanted pregnancy is, well, shameful.

If I were having your fetus I would totally not abort it.

That's great. But you had the option. That's the key word. Option. Women should have the option to not see the ultrasound prior to an abortion. As Drole said, you aren't required to view your colonoscopy. Again, what is the difference?

As I've said, I've had tests involving visuals that could have resulted in extra procedures (including surgery). I didn't need to see the visuals, and wouldn't have if surgery was the result. The doctor can point and explain all they want, but it doesn't matter that I'm intelligent. I didn't go to medical school, and have to trust that they're correct or get a second opinion from another doctor if I don't. It's completely understandable that some people want to see the visuals. My mother is one of those people, for example. She always wants every single detail before making decisions. I don't. And we should both have the option to go about making our medical decisions in the way we see fit.

Backtracking doesn't get you anywhere. That is NOT what you said. Yes, it is appropriate to have your doctor show you your films IF you want to see them, but that is completely different than...
So which is it? Should no one make these decisions without seeing films they aren't qualified to evaluate or can you see them if you feel they help you? I spend a lot of time with my patients discussing their case. MOST find no benefit from seeing their films, and it is not Standard of Care to show them.