Any thoughts on mandated procedures?

[ugonow]

Should a government force medical procedures on patients?----------Rick Perry Signs Controversial Bill Requiring Women To Get Sonogram 24 Hours Before An Abortion
Yesterday afternoon, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed the state’s controversial sonogram bill into law. The bill passed the legislature earlier this month and will require doctors to perform a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and describe the fetus to the pregnant patient. The Senate sponsor of the bill, Dan Patrick (R) hailed it as “the beginning of the end for abortions,” and said he was so proud that “I may be inspired to wear my cowboy hat” when Perry signed the bill. House sponsor Sid Miller (R) correctly described it as “one of the strongest sonogram bills in the nation.” Facing the state’s worst budget crisis in modern history, Perry dubbed the sonogram bill an “emergency priority” that allowed the legislature to expedite its passage.

Effective Sept. 1, doctors must perform sonograms before abortions, must describe the presence of internal organs or limbs and must make the fetal heartbeat audible. [...]"“

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

A sonogram is a medical procedure?
Anyway, I defer, but don't preggo's get counseling and other emotional help prior to(and after) undergoing an abortion.

[chiver78]

May 25, 2011 14:03:46 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

A sonogram is a medical procedure?
Anyway, I defer, but don't preggo's get counseling and other emotional help prior to(and after) undergoing an abortion.

yup, a diagnostic one.

[Angel!]

Wow, & someone was just claiming in another thread how conservatives don't try to control people. I wonder if anyone has considered the potential negative psychological impacts this would have on someone that had an abortion. If I ever chose to have an abortion, it would be after serious thought & because of extenuating circumstances. Describing the fetus at that point wouldn't change my mind, but cause me severe emotional distress & potentially give me PTSD.

Way to go conservatives! Way to really make a woman's life hell!

[deziloooooo]

May 25, 2011 13:44:06 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Should a government force medical procedures on patients?----------Rick Perry Signs Controversial Bill Requiring Women To Get Sonogram 24 Hours Before An Abortion
Yesterday afternoon, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed the state’s controversial sonogram bill into law. The bill passed the legislature earlier this month and will require doctors to perform a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and describe the fetus to the pregnant patient. The Senate sponsor of the bill, Dan Patrick (R) hailed it as “the beginning of the end for abortions,” and said he was so proud that “I may be inspired to wear my cowboy hat” when Perry signed the bill. House sponsor Sid Miller (R) correctly described it as “one of the strongest sonogram bills in the nation.” Facing the state’s worst budget crisis in modern history, Perry dubbed the sonogram bill an “emergency priority” that allowed the legislature to expedite its passage.

Effective Sept. 1, doctors must perform sonograms before abortions, must describe the presence of internal organs or limbs and must make the fetal heartbeat audible. [...]"“

Wonder if they will have to go back to the legislature to stop those many doctors who are against this act from handing out earphones that can be tuned to the muic of the patients choice to listen to as he performs his mandated duty.

Just had another thought. Patient has a appointment for the abortion on Wednesday but she has to go to the Doctor the day before, for the sonogram the day before so some one is going to get a bill for the extra Doctor visit, and since it is a procedure, the charge for that too.

You go Texas..yeee haaa, you F idiots.

[Deleted]

I don't know, I am torn on this. On one hand, I think it is a good idea. Om the other hand, I don't know if it needs to be mandated...

[Opti]

"Should a government force medical procedures on patients?----------"

I'd prefer no, but most states already do. If are acting the right kind of weird you can be taken to a hospital of the state's choosing and then put in a psychiatric facility at your expense.

[bean29]

So, they just significantly increased the cost of an abortion. Is the mandated sonogram covered by insurance?

It is legal to have an abortion but they are kind of making it expensive to get.

Optimist4Life - They do not mandate psychiatric care without a commitment hearing, so your assertion is way off base.

[chiver78]

May 25, 2011 14:33:37 GMT -5 bean29 said:

So, they just significantly increased the cost of an abortion. Is the mandated sonogram covered by insurance?

It is legal to have an abortion but they are kind of making it expensive to get.

Optimist4Life - They do not mandate psychiatric care without a commitment hearing, so your assertion is way off base.

no, it would not be covered by insurance. at least in the articles I've found on the topic.

so the proponents of this bill are imposing a pre-requisite of a completely unnecessary diagnostic procedure, in order to receive a different legal one. that makes a whole lot of sense.

[Opti]

Bean, they start treating you with meds within 24 hours - way before the commitment hearing so your info is inaccurate for my state.

[cme1201]

May 25, 2011 14:33:37 GMT -5 bean29 said:

So, they just significantly increased the cost of an abortion. Is the mandated sonogram covered by insurance?

It is legal to have an abortion but they are kind of making it expensive to get.

Optimist4Life - They do not mandate psychiatric care without a commitment hearing, so your assertion is way off base.

In Florida we have the baker act which allows police to pick up a person who is "mental disturbed" and they are held at a psychiatric hospital for 72 hours while they are being checked.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Wow, & someone was just claiming in another thread how conservatives don't try to control people. I wonder if anyone has considered the potential negative psychological impacts this would have on someone that had an abortion. If I ever chose to have an abortion, it would be after serious thought & because of extenuating circumstances. Describing the fetus at that point wouldn't change my mind, but cause me severe emotional distress & potentially give me PTSD.

Mmmm... I seem to recall the eight month pregnant Sharon Tate was murdered by Charles Manson, who was convicted of a double murder, Tate and the "fetus".

[Opti]

CME, I think the 3 day thing is standard. I think you have to be lucky and/or know you can refuse meds in order to not take any drugs during that period.

Psychiatry especially the emergency side is so oriented towards meds that people get drugged that shouldn't.
The doctors don't look for side effects from other drugs that perhaps people should be off, they look at the symptoms and decide what pharma drug of choice should be used.

I'm probably a bit sensitive about this as I picked up a couple books Unhinged and Blaming the Brain after a co-worker correctly guessed this one patient where we work had probably been dosed with Haldol.

[chiver78]

May 25, 2011 14:47:30 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Wow, & someone was just claiming in another thread how conservatives don't try to control people. I wonder if anyone has considered the potential negative psychological impacts this would have on someone that had an abortion. If I ever chose to have an abortion, it would be after serious thought & because of extenuating circumstances. Describing the fetus at that point wouldn't change my mind, but cause me severe emotional distress & potentially give me PTSD.

Mmmm... I seem to recall the eight month pregnant Sharon Tate was murdered by Charles Manson, who was convicted of a double murder, Tate and the "fetus".

SF, we've gone over this already, ad nauseum - an 8-months pregnant woman is carrying a fetus that is legally deemed viable. the 8th month is well past any state's limits on a legal abortion.

[cme1201]

May 25, 2011 14:50:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

CME, I think the 3 day thing is standard. I think you have to be lucky and/or know you can refuse meds in order to not take any drugs during that period.

Psychiatry especially the emergency side is so oriented towards meds that people get drugged that shouldn't.
The doctors don't look for side effects from other drugs that perhaps people should be off, they look at the symptoms and decide what pharma drug of choice should be used.

I'm probably a bit sensitive about this as I picked up a couple books Unhinged and Blaming the Brain after a co-worker correctly guessed this one patient where we work had probably been dosed with Haldol.

If you are baker acted in Florida you have no rights until you go before a judge, you are not allowed to not take meds, if you refuse to take pills you will receive it intravenously.

First hand experience through a family member.

[thyme4change]

Who is paying for the sonogram?
Can the government force a medical procedure on anyone?

And

Eliminating abortions will increase the number of kids/Moms on welfare. Unless you are going to write a law that forces certain Moms to put their baby up for adoption.

[Deleted]

I don't know, as a society we like to require that people have been told all relevant information before they make a decision, and I think that is a good thing. I'm not sure how requiring that mothers be told this important, relevant info is a bad thing.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

What, are you afraid that people will see it as a living baby instead of an unborn fetus?

[chiver78]

May 25, 2011 15:11:01 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

What, are you afraid that people will see it as a living baby instead of an unborn fetus?

can you give a valid reason that it's medically necessary?

[Opti]

"If you are baker acted in Florida you have no rights until you go before a judge, you are not allowed to not take meds, if you refuse to take pills you will receive it intravenously.

First hand experience through a family member. "

Wow. Thanks for sharing. I used read a lot on this subject but haven't for years. One or both of the books pointed out that even though biologically the neurotransmitter levels are changed usually within 24 hours the therapeutic effect doesn't fully manifest until 3 to 4 weeks later. Maybe I'll start a new thread. Lots of interesting stuff I hadn't known, like some of the drugs actually cause the brain to permanently grow more neurotransmitter sites.

[thyme4change]

I don't know, as a society we like to require that people have been told all relevant information before they make a decision, and I think that is a good thing. I'm not sure how requiring that mothers be told this important, relevant info is a bad thing.

A sonogram isn't necessary to give complete information. Why not just make them sign 72 documents that acknowledge that they read and signed and understood the other 283 documents like they did with mortgages? It doesn't actually help people understand anything. You can put pictures of babies on the 283 documents.

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 15:03:21 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

I don't know, as a society we like to require that people have been told all relevant information before they make a decision, and I think that is a good thing. I'm not sure how requiring that mothers be told this important, relevant info is a bad thing.

I don't see giving women medically relevent information as bad. I see this bill as trying to tug at emotional heartstrings to try to get the reaction one wants.

A doctor doesn't need to give a sonagram to know what stage of development a fetus is in (assuming you know the gestation period, which I assume would have been done). So there is no reason to show the women a picture of her baby or have her listen to the heartbeat. If you want medical relevance, then you tell her the baby has a heartbeat & is at X stage of development.

[Deleted]

May 25, 2011 15:24:11 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I don't know, as a society we like to require that people have been told all relevant information before they make a decision, and I think that is a good thing. I'm not sure how requiring that mothers be told this important, relevant info is a bad thing.

A sonogram isn't necessary to give complete information. Why not just make them sign 72 documents that acknowledge that they read and signed and understood the other 283 documents like they did with mortgages? It doesn't actually help people understand anything. You can put pictures of babies on the 283 documents.

That's good too.

[Deleted]

May 25, 2011 15:25:40 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 25, 2011 15:03:21 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

I don't know, as a society we like to require that people have been told all relevant information before they make a decision, and I think that is a good thing. I'm not sure how requiring that mothers be told this important, relevant info is a bad thing.

I don't see giving women medically relevent information as bad. I see this bill as trying to tug at emotional heartstrings to try to get the reaction one wants.

A doctor doesn't need to give a sonagram to know what stage of development a fetus is in (assuming you know the gestation period, which I assume would have been done). So there is no reason to show the women a picture of her baby or have her listen to the heartbeat. If you want medical relevance, then you tell her the baby has a heartbeat & is at X stage of development.

Ok. To me more info is not bad. Tugging at heart strings is not bad. This is a big decision in one's life. A little tugging isn't the worst thing in the world. But I have a penis, so maybe tugging means something different to me.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I have friends who don't like that the government mandates vaccinations for their children before they can attend free public school.

And I have friends who don't like that the government now submits them to x-rays before they can fly on airplanes.

And I have friends who don't like that the government makes them take vision tests before permitting them to drive automobiles.

And I have friends who don't like that the government makes them undergo drug testing before permitting them to work for the government.

Government-mandated procedures and examinations as a condition precedent to getting to do something isn't new.... but it does seem to be growing in popularity. In fact, I've read statements by a number of posters on this forum about mandating drug testing for welfare recipients.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

And I have friends who don't like that the government makes them take vision tests before permitting them to drive automobiles

Doesn't seem to make a lot of difference, my great aunt is blind in one eye and needs the person in the passenger seat to navigate and she still gets her license renewed!

[Wisconsin Beth]

May 25, 2011 14:10:28 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Wow, & someone was just claiming in another thread how conservatives don't try to control people. I wonder if anyone has considered the potential negative psychological impacts this would have on someone that had an abortion. If I ever chose to have an abortion, it would be after serious thought & because of extenuating circumstances. Describing the fetus at that point wouldn't change my mind, but cause me severe emotional distress & potentially give me PTSD.

Way to go conservatives! Way to really make a woman's life hell!

I know someone on a babyboard who elected to have an abortion recently. She's got 2 toddlers 18 months apart and had c-sections for both of them. If she continued with the pregnancy, she'd be on bedrest for the next 7 months. It was a very personal and painful decision for her and her spouse to make. Describing the baby 24 hrs. prior to it would have been beyond cruel.

[Deleted]

Life's a Bitch.

[Angel!]

May 25, 2011 15:27:34 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

May 25, 2011 15:25:40 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I don't see giving women medically relevent information as bad. I see this bill as trying to tug at emotional heartstrings to try to get the reaction one wants.

A doctor doesn't need to give a sonagram to know what stage of development a fetus is in (assuming you know the gestation period, which I assume would have been done). So there is no reason to show the women a picture of her baby or have her listen to the heartbeat. If you want medical relevance, then you tell her the baby has a heartbeat & is at X stage of development.

Ok. To me more info is not bad. Tugging at heart strings is not bad. This is a big decision in one's life. A little tugging isn't the worst thing in the world. But I have a penis, so maybe tugging means something different to me.

You are assuming that the women hasn't already had to make one of the most difficult decisions she may ever face.

You want to further make the rape victim deal with the fact that she is either choosing to end the life of a fetus with a heartbeat or go through 7 more months of hating herself & wanting to kill herself at the constant reminder of the pain she has been through.

You want to make a mother who desperately wanted a child have to further deal with the fact she is ending her baby's life even though her baby has been diagnosed with trisomy 18, which means it will have severe birth defects, if it even lives to be born, & then has less than a 10% chance of living to be 1 year old.

Not the most common situations, but these are the reasons I am pro-choice & the reason I don't think it is the govt's or anyone else's job to make it more difficult for a women going through an abortion.

Pro-lifer's tend to think that women getting an abortion are just lazy with the birth control or don't understand what a fetus really is. While this might be true for some, many understand the implications of their choices & put serious thought into the decision. Trying to make a tough decision more emotionally heart-breaking is cruel & unnecessary.

[Deleted]

life's a bitch