Court allows Texas to force women into medically unnecessary sonograms

Pretty close.

Damn you could rob a 7/11 with that thing!

Physicist, I had to have one a few years ago--suspected cancer. NOT a pleasant, comfortable, or cheap procedure. No cancer so I am grateful. Had it been a state mandated procedure pre-D&C, my insurance would not have covered it.

I had the sonogram too because of ovarian cysts. For a 50 something year old woman who has given birth to two children, had annual pap smears, a colonoscopy and other very personal tests, it was unpleasant but bearable. But for a young woman? I cannot imagine how unnecessarily unbearable that would have been back when I was young and unjaded.

How much more can we subjugate 51% of the country with draconian, invasive laws?

Absolutely! And since women are 51% of the population, when the hell are we ALL going to start voting for those candidates who will protect our rights and our bodily integrity?!?

I think I would PIMP if someone made me have anything to do with that proceedure while it was unnecessary. It's that big, and they wanna stick it where?

I've had the trans-vaginal ultrasound twice for ovarian cysts and it is very unpleasant. I had to have them stop early once. I was about to freak out. Possibly because I have been raped before, not sure. But to force someone to get one of these for NON medical reason is torture, pure and simple.

These sicko anti-choice @!$%#s just want to punish "trampy" women for the crime of having sex. I'd like to ram the thing up their sanctimonious asses and see how THEY like it. Of course I'll never set foot in Texas (like I needed another reason not to!).

Given the size and shape of the probe, is it possible that the sonogram itself might cause complication of the pregnancy?

northtosouth

god question

I meant "good" question.

northtosouth-Given the size and shape of the probe, is it possible that the sonogram itself might cause complication of the pregnancy?

No, it's not comfortable, but I had one done early on with both of my pregnancies. Twins run in my family so the doctor wanted to check so we'd know what growth, etc. to expect.

Thanks, inmissouri. The think looks like it's a good 24" long. I can imagine it being extremely uncomfortable and even painfull. If a doc wanted to probe my backside with something like that looking for cancer I'd probably take my chances with the cancer.

I have had it done twice, once during pregnancy (they found a cyst on my son's liver) and once because they were worried about cancer. It was not unbearable, but it was horribly uncomfortable. I couldn't imagine being forced to go through something like that.

Q: WHY mandate these sonograms, counseling, second visits, and all the other ridiculous visits before one can actually have the abortion performed?

A: Because the whole idea is to delay, delay, delay until it is too late for the poor female victim to get a legal abortion, whether in that state or in another state. This then forces her to desperate measures like throwing herself down staircases or going to some butcher with a wire-hanger. But by that point they (the politicians) don't care, because they have tossed some crumbs in the direction of the religious-right zealots.

Make damned sure a Republican isn't voted in to office! Even in the dead of night, alone in their thoughts, these Republicans may agree with the majority - which is still on the side of women's health care rights, right to choose, and right to privacy laws - but they have to get elected and are kowtowing to the ever increasing crescendo of the ultra rabid right religious people who, as you said, want to impose the wills of their religion on everyone.

Don't vote ANYONE into office who is willing to blur the separation of church and state!

Physicist-retired

But I've been watching a woman's reproductive rights erode almost from the day that Roe v Wade was decided. And I really don't know if a similar ruling would come out of today's very Conservative Supreme Court.

Keep in mind that Roe v Wade was not specifically an abortion rights ruling. The ruling was on Privacy.

Decided simultaneously with companion case Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the woman's health.

If it were specifically saying abortions are legal, we wouldn't have to deal with all this crap the GOP keep doing.

I don't know about anyone else, and I'm not a woman to be effected by it, BUT having Dirty Harry shove his 44-magnum up a woman's privates is about as UNprivate as anything could be!!!

BTW, weren't they suppose to be working on jobs?

I fear this will not end peacefully. i hope it does. If it does not, even at my age, i will stand and fight for a woman to not be treated like breeding stock.

Jeff, I will stand with you, I am in Corpus Christi.

We have to stop this war on women. Have these judges been infiltrated by the Taliban?

Look, everyone can whale and yell until the cows come home, but it will not change the ruling. This has been in the works for a long time and anyone that pays attention in Texas knows this. It has been challenged and still upheld many times.

Judges in Texas are elected and Obama was at the top of the ticket last time thus knocking off a lot of conservative judges, due to straight ticket voting. Most people in the US can't even name 2 or 3 judges at the state level so to get all hyped about decisions is your own fault.

This is Texas and it is a red state so conservative ideas will be pushed. If it were a blue state I imagine liberal ideas will be pushed. Everyone is free to uproot and move to a more liberal state if that is what you desire but they won't because of this states economics. (cheap houses/land, employment, etc.)

lib50:

That is a real ignorant azz statement.

Please don't take this the wrong way, IntheMiddle. Whale is the animal; wail is the fussing. I know that may make me seem picky.

You do have a point. I guess those who truly wish to get an abortion without this procedure could just go to another state.

Wherever it makes me fall on the political scale, I just don't think the government should be making decisions concerning people's body like this.

Lissa, I agree. I don't thin the government, local state or federal, should be mandating highly invasive medical procedures. I think this one's about power. State mandated vaginal penetration. Sad.

Inthemiddle - I stand by every word. Lets cut the bull@!$%#. This ruling is a gross invasion of privacy, a state sponsored rape, forcing an unwanted medical procedure on a woman. It takes away a fundamental right to control your own body (women only). Very Talibanistic. You might not like the two to be linked, but I assure you many women feel the way I do.

Your throwing that word around....You don't even know what the Taliban is nor who they are.

Gross invasion of privacy..lol.....get a grip. Big Brother is in on everything you do or say.

State sponsored rape?.....lol... liberals are a trip. Who in the hell is raping YOU? The law basically says you must prove you have been raped ie. police report, etc. This is so abortions are not done via a lie.

Many women feel like you do?? I talked to 4 women just a second ago, just to see if that is so. All four said they haven't paid attention to the news of the law and it didn't affect them.

My personal note is this. I could care less about how you destroy your veejay with those D&C's. If you want an abortion, just drive to a state that is more liberal and they will gladly accept your money.

The problem is that this type of law affects everyone because it removes your personal choice. So no matter if you are male or female, if you are of child bearing age or not, if you do not have a sister, daughter niece and so on of child bearing age or even if you and all those you associate with are pro life supporters, this goes way beyond that. This is chipping away at a very personal right, removing your ability to follow what you believe is the best personal choice for you.

Bad rant intheMiddle.

State sponsored rape?.....lol... liberals are a trip. Who in the hell is raping YOU? The law basically says you must prove you have been raped ie. police report, etc. This is so abortions are not done via a lie.

I didn't see where the law said she had to prove she had been raped, just that she would have to claim it if she didn't want the ultra sound. But that may have been left out of the report.

Forcing a woman who has chosen to have an abortion to go through a vaginal ultra sound so that she can hear the heart beat of a fetus is wrong, even with the vaginal ultra sound there is no guarantee they will pick it up. It is medically un-necessary... If you went into doctor's office for a hearing examine and the state decided that before a man can get a hearing examine he must have an 8 in metal tube shoved up his ass...would that not be state assisted rape?

ONE BIG PROBLEM IN ALL CULTS IS "GROUP THINK", authority is never questioned. The Lord WANTS us to QUESTION

This quote was from a review of a film about Mormonism. But oddly enough, it fits every brand of religious zealotry in this country or any other, for that matter. And as stated above by Michael in S J, this religious zealotry (or American Taliban) is the crux of the problem here.

We have gone from a country founded on religious freedom to one where the fundamentalists try to force their views and politics on everyone else. And this is not right, and it could be the death of America as we know it, if we do not all come to our senses and stop this immoral insertion of religious fundamentalism into American politics and policy.

Men were also sterilized against their will. Anyone who had a deformity, mental illness, was mentally slow, or on any type of welfare were subject to forcible sterilization. This was eugenics. It was not an attempt to rid the US of Blacks because many who were damaged were White. It was an attempt to rid the US of supposedly inferior people.

Right. Texas finds a way to give unnecessary and unbeneficial treatments to women in furtherance of the religious beliefs of a minority, but denies necessary and beneficial treatments to women despite the moral beliefs of the majority.

CM: Isn't that typical for them?

When the Republicans are done gerrymandering all of the voting districts,you can vote all you want. What gets me is that they think this issue and redistricting are more important than the economy and jobs.

These people could care less about you. They have an agenda and if you don't fall in line they plan to bury you (figuratively speaking... I think).

If you're Rick Perry you'd say literally (meaning figuratively of course). Then again, in Texas it might literally be literally. Literally speaking, of course.

Hey Texas, keep that thing OUTTA mine!

And coming soon, compulsory breeding at the whim of ANY man, if the conservatives get their way.

compulsory breeding at the whim of ANY man,

Perry announced the other day that rape or incest are not reasons for abortion. He's basically legitimizing rape and incest

But once the children are born, and many poor, he will move to cut off food, medical care, and housing assistance. Once born poor, then they become losers from loser parents.

This is like the American Taliban with these wacko ultra right wing christians trying to force their will on the whole country.

I am a liberal Christian and proud of it---I don't know what bible they go by, but it most certainly is not the bible I was raised with.

...and I guess the Bible encourages abortion. You need to read it sometime and not just let it sit up on display.

Force their will???? I Bible says SPREAD the good news.....If as a christian you are ashamed of him..you know the rest.

I am not sure that the Bible addresses abortions at all. It was written just a wee bit before abortions became a hot topic. Again it is not so much about abortions but the right to make the choice.

Bad analogy, intheMiddle.

The bible does address abortions and infanticide. Those times were incredibly harsh for women and children. Abortions have been happening since we discovered herbs. It was not at all uncommon or even taboo until recent history.

Bible says SPREAD the good news

Right...what it DOESN'T say is "spread your damned legs for this metal probe."

Funny, but if you've read the bible...then you might know there are LOTS of awful suggestions on how to treat women in it. Most modern Christians know that it was written by MEN 2000 years ago (and quite a while AFTER Jesus) and therefore shouldn't be taken literally. As a species, we've matured since then.

The bible has some excellent advice on how to treat other humans...particularly the New Testament...you know, the parts actually about Jesus...perhaps you should re-read those parts.

There will be a pop quiz later.

Exactly how freaking stupid do these people think women are?

I know an awful lot of women. Some are pretty stupid to be sure. Not a one of them do not know what abortion is and what it does. Not a one of them does not know the consequence of continuing a pregnancy to term or the result of an abortion.

So stuffing this thing up a woman's vagina is going to add what value or knowledge that women don't already know? What is worse is all the state mandated LIES that women are forced to hear. Some of us (myself included in my younger years) actually believe everything a doctor or health professional tells us about our bodies or possible results from any procedure done.

Uh, this is a transvaginal sonogram. They stick a cold wand up a hoohaa. They then move it around at weird angles which don't always feel good. It's not pleasant.

Edit: Nevermind. Just saw your edit. It's hard to tell sarcasm sometime. (But maybe I managed to educate someone on these kinds of sonograms.)

I'm only rarely serious - no really.

Can we not say "vagina"? It isn't a hard word.

I've had one done. They're not unpleasant, they're not pleasant. They just are.

Uh, this is a transvaginal sonogram. They stick a cold wand up a hoohaa. They then move it around at weird angles which don't always feel good. It's not pleasant.

And let's not forget the liter of water you have to drink right before the test so that they can get a better image....

I can say vagina. It can be almost as hard to say as penis. Maybe there is a message in that somewhere? Or maybe I just wanted to say penis and hard in the same sentence...

lol

now that was funny....

[thank goodness I wasn't drinking or eating while reading you ppl. ; ) ]

Can we not say "vagina"? It isn't a hard word.

I've had one done. They're not unpleasant, they're not pleasant. They just are.

I always thought my "vagina"/hoohaa/vajayjay was very pleasant. Better than pleasant, actually. Well, except for right after I had my son or when that doctor was not so adept with the speculum, it's always been at least pleasant. Those couple of times, it just hurt.

Or maybe I just wanted to say penis and hard in the same sentence...

Those two are always best when right next to each other.

Vagina! See it isn't going to kill a person to say it. I spend 4 months a year saying penis, vagina, clitoris, scrotum, and anus in front of 100+ people. I don't feel embarrassed or silly about it. No one giggles when you say arm, leg, kneecap, or shoulder. They are just body parts people.

However, the first assignment of every term is always my favorite. Since I started the class Tuesday, feel free to play along with us. See if you can come up with a list of 25 names for the opposite sex's genitalia. Mail it to me here and we will see how creative you are.

Can we not say "vagina"? It isn't a hard word.

I can say vagina. I just also like the word hoohaa. I used to yell it around the house as a kid when I was learning to talk.

Any one can say vagina. But, this damned thing goes into a woman's uterus!

I spend 4 months a year saying penis, vagina, clitoris, scrotum, and anus in front of 100+ people

LOL One of the things I like about my job is you can walk up to a coworker and use vulva ina sentence and no one blinks!

But, this damned thing goes into a woman's uterus!

No, no. Just the vagina. The cervix won't let it get into the uterus.

I wouldn't repeat that in Texas if I were you. They may pass a law against menopausal women...

Yeah, like put me in jail if I did not have the required number of births.

Or worse, get all freaky about a prolapsed uterus. Imagine all the nonsense we'd be hearing on that one.

"put that uterus back woman, how dare you let it fall out like that!"
"there ought to be some kind of law.... wait a minute... what a great idea!"

Next thing you know they'll be passing laws about letting your uterus fall out. Oh the humanity!

*/face palm*

My grandmother has a prolapsed uterus... That has gotta suck.

You know, I would have found this part of the thread funnier...

if it weren't for the ridiculous level of ridiculous Texas has risen to.

I honestly don't find this newest Texas bullsh!t funny at all.

Don't give them any new ideas....

Yep. Forcing people to all have health insurance is intrusive, but shoving a camera in someone's vagina isn't. Go figure.

Broodmares.

For some reason this seemed appropriate here.

Maybe because that cat looks preggers. Although, the ad for "Christian and Single" dating service was priceless. LOL

Our current SCOTUS is so far removed from reality and intellectual merit that i would not want them to touch any progressive case until a few more of the Neanderthals retire.

Michael- that is exactly what all of these "law" makers around the country are hoping for! All of these anti-women laws aimed at reproductive rights are their effort to get Roe v Wade overturned.

They are desperately hoping some women's rights group will take them tall the way to the Supreme Court. Problem with that? These groups know that and are content-at this time- to keep the fight at the state level.

With a supreme court that thinks corporations are people, let's not give them a chance to make decisions about what a person can and cannot do with their own body.

inmissouri--

That's IT!!!!

We wait until they make abortion illegal, then we force corporations to produce offspring after offspring (little screaming baby corporations) until they are BROKE!!!

You just came up with the answer to overheated American corporatism.

Oh, poor little spilled seeds. Every sperm is precious, you know. ///sss!!!

I've got one better. Every time a woman has to go through this stupidity in order to have an abortion, everyone that voted for this crap should have to have a colonoscopy. Not quite as horrible, but close enough for them to perhaps get the picture.

Now I like that idea! At least the colonoscopy prep can serve as a "brain cleaner," too.

Every sperm is precious, you know. ///sss!!!

Monty Python did an excellent version of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

Women do not have to hear the heartbeat or view the sonogram. It's also not medically necessary. If it is it should be determined by the doctors and not politicians. Women are not children that have to push either toward pregnancy or abortion. Women know exactly what is in their uterus. It sure isn't puppies.

Not all women, BBall. Some are very confused, very young little girls, either mentally, physically, or both.

Abortion is a big decision, and the sonogram isn't very scary.

People should understand that there is a baby growing inside of them before they decide to terminate that life.

First, your procedure was medically necessary to monitor the health of your WANTED fetus. I had an intrauterine sonogram done at 3 weeks because there was the possibility of ectopic pregnancy. It was not comfortable, but I welcomed it to make sure that I wouldn't DIE from my pregnancy. Imagine having to endure this procedure after being raped, already traumatized from a horrible violation and terrified of being forcibly pregnant. You are right, though, that women needing an abortion would not have their minds changed by listening to the heartbeat of an unwanted parasite so why bother mandating this? Women do not make this decision lightly, whether it be the smaller number of rape/incest/abuse victims or the larger number of women who already have children and do not want anymore for whatever reason. And the reason does not matter, it is a woman's choice to surrender her body to a pregnancy, which is no day at the park. No one has the right to enforce a pregnancy on a woman. Period.

-Z

Mother, rape survivor, cervical cancer survivor

Some are very confused, very young little girls, either mentally, physically, or both.

And giving birth is going to help them?

Besides, the majority of women having abortions already HAVE at least one child. And an even bigger majority of women having abortions is over 18. The stereotype of the typical abortion patient as being an irresponsible teenager is old and still incorrect.

Here's a quick rundown on Abortion in the United States.

Not all women, BBall. Some are very confused, very young little girls, either mentally, physically, or both.

Abortion is a big decision, and the sonogram isn't very scary.

People should understand that there is a baby growing inside of them before they decide to terminate that life.

Very young little girls should not be mothers. Abortion is a big decision, and if a girl or woman truly has no idea what is going on inside her, she should not bring a child into this world.

Ask a girl who has just started getting her PAP smears if having some stranger poke around in your most private areas isn't scary, hell I've been getting yearly exams because of my previous cancer for over 15 years and I still hate it!

"People" don't have to incubate a life, women do. They get it, they know what is in there and that it is going to get bigger, that it will use their own body to harvest nutrients and that it could kill them. Give women some credit!

-Z

Mother, rape survivor, cervical cancer survivor

The difference between Meghan's and Zumia's outlook are remarkable (I am not taking sides here):

Meghan

I've had a trans-vaginal sonogram before. I've been pregnant three times, given birth twice. My second baby died at eight weeks, and they did a trans-vaginal sonogram (didn't know it was called that at the time) to determine whether or not there was still a heartbeat.

It wasn't invasive. It wasn't rape. It was a procedure that was necessary to determine if my baby was alive or not, at that time.

If the women getting the abortions have their minds changed by such a little thing as hearing a heartbeat, how sure were they to begin with?

Zumia

Women do not make this decision lightly, whether it be the smaller number of rape/incest/abuse victims or the larger number of women who already have children and do not want anymore for whatever reason. And the reason does not matter, it is a woman's choice to surrender her body to a pregnancy, which is no day at the park. No one has the right to enforce a pregnancy on a woman. Period

No women should be placed into a position of having either Meghan or Zumia make her decision. It should be between the woman and her physician.

And remember please, it was the physician group that brought the lawsuit on the grounds of free speech - as in not being required to speak if they don't wish to speak.

It isn't necessarily about little girls being confused. It's about another hoop some poor woman has to jump through to get something accomplished she has more than likely thought long and hard about! And, if it turns out they have to pay for it, it's another cost to endure, time off work, embarrassment, you name it all.

This is simply a chipping away at Roe v. Wade. Something the rabid right would overturn TOMORROW if they thought they could (and the only reason why I say tomorrow is because it's late in the day TODAY!).

Michael in S J,

You are right; two very different outlooks. The difference is that I would not make the decision for women, that is why I am pro-choice, unlike Meghan who would take that choice away.

-Z

Mother, rape survivor, cervical cancer survivor

So Meghan, you think women are too stupid to realize that at the end of pregnancy they will have a baby, but are smart enough to raise a child...

It wasn't invasive. It wasn't rape.

Really, not invasive??? I think the new FBI definition of rape pretty well describes this procedure:

Appearing on the FBI website, the new definition says: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

People should understand that there is a baby growing inside of them before they decide to terminate that life.

Most abortions are performed on women who are already mothers. They know very well what's growing in side them. Why do you think women are too ignorant to know what they are doing?

A unnecessary vaginal procedure being mandated by the state is actually very close to state mandated rape and further they require that health care providers be the perpetrators. Its a violation of the patient/provider relationship. Its disgusting and should have been over turned.

I appreciate how my views are taken.

I didn't know that I supported rape, that I supported unwanted pregnancies, that I think women are stupid, or that I would take the choice of someone to have an abortion away.

I'm glad you're all here. Putting words in my mouth in certainly necessary, since I didn't realize all that about myself.

Got your attention? Good. Now, here's how I really feel:

Women have the right to terminate a pregnancy they deem unwanted, inconvenient, or that they just plain don't want to have to deal with. That isn't my decision - it is a right. I don't agree with abortions, and I do not see myself ever having one, but would I discriminate against someone who has? No. Would I 'take that choice away'? No. They're allowed to.

But I honestly feel that, which as many contraceptive options out there, they should use them and strive not to get pregnant in the first place.

If you want to know, my husband and I don't want another child right now. I've got Mirena and we use condoms, each and every time.

I don't think women are stupid. I don't think ALL women are stupid. Just like there are stupid males, there are stupid females. There are some adults who, when given the stork story, actually believed it into adulthood.

Very little girls shouldn't be mothers. Hell, the shouldn't even be pregnant, but the fact is some of them get pregnant and some of them become mothers. The perfect world would not have people impregnating little girls, but we live in a world far from perfect.
The ones that are very little should not be allowed to stay pregnant - the pregnancy should be terminated as early as possible for the mental and physical health of the mother. Same goes for children from the mentally handicapped, specifically those who cannot make their own life decisions and require someone else to be in control of their entire world. They shouldn't have ended up pregnant (it usually means that someone was horrible), but if they get pregnant, they should have access to immediatly removing the baby.

If the doctors had deemed this a medical necessity, then this would not be an issue, I understand. The issue is that some politician has decided to, yes, 'put another hoop' in front of women who want abortion services. I don't think they were in the right to do that, especially if the woman herself has to pay for it. I don't think the courts were in the right to uphold it.

"I don't mind this law" is what I said. I don't mind it. It could be repealed tomorrow and I'd not be impacted, just like many of you on the board. I don't think that the vaginal sonogram is at all invasive, harmful, etc. If the person behind it is doing it because the government told them they had to, that is where the harm lays.

And Zumia, I know. I don't like pap smears. I'm a few months overdue for one (and cervical cancer runs in my family) but I won't go until I find a female gyno. My PCP last year (male) refused to let me see a gyno, and insisted on doing the pap in his office. He's still my PCP, but I'll be damned if I'm letting him do that to me again.

Meghan,

Thank you for clarifying your position. Hope you find a new female gyno; male gynecologists are like auto mechanics who have never owned or driven a car! Don't wait, though, especially if it runs in your family.

-Z

Mother, rape survivor, cervical cancer survivor

My PCP last year (male) refused to let me see a gyno, and insisted on doing the pap in his office.

Refused? I'd dump him for that alone. I used to have a great male gyno back in RI, but I have been through 4 in 5 years here in NJ. Male, female...they have all been awful!

I miss my ob/gyn from when I had my son. He retired less than a year after I had my son and moved away. (He was originally from Canada.) He was considerate, gentle and informative.

My first OB/GYN was just amazing. I've had several since he retired 20+ years ago. Not a one as good.

Thanks for clarifying Meghan. I can agree with a lot of what you say. But on one thing you are very clearly wrong. It is ABSOLUTELY an invasive procedure. I cannot understand how anyone could say it isn't. And how do you know if it's harmful or not?? For some women it may very well be, especially women with small vaginal vaults. I'm glad that for you it wasn't difficult, but please don't act like your experience is universal, especially since so many women on here who've had the procedure have clearly said it was very bad for them. Can you imagine what it would be like for a 14 or 15 year old rape victim? It's an incredibly invasive and at the least uncomfortable procedure which is quite painful to some women. While I can appreciate your opinion, let's not act like having this done is the same as having your blood pressure taken. It's just not. And it is an outrage that this law is trumping a woman's right to make her own decisions and also legislating what MDs can and cannot say. When did we become Iran??

Zumia:

I think you are brave to identify yourself as you do. Thanks.

Z--

Mother, rape survivor, cervical cancer survivor

PsychoDoc

We can agree on that. It wasn't horrible for me, it may be for other women.

And with my PCP, I kept telling him I'd prefer to see a gyno and he just said, "No, I'll just do it now." The only other dude I had down there doin' that stuff was the one who told me that I'd miscarried. I'm SO not comfortable with dude gynos.

I'd find another one, but the clinic I go to is the one I take my kids to and they have no other PCPs available, and no gynos available. I've been thinking about changing, but am not sure how much of a pain in the rear it'd be.

I'm with you on the not being comfortable with male gynos. And your guy sounds particularly aggressive, which in my mind is extremely innapropriate. What did he want to do it for? Some docs do get off on making women uncomfortable and they like the power thing as well. It may be a pain to do, but it might be worth it to change docs so you don't have to go through that again. NO doc should ignore what their patient wants and there was no reason at all for that doc to not give the referral you requested. That's why I question his motives. Either way, good luck to you!

I've been thinking about changing, but am not sure how much of a pain in the rear it'd be.

You're the customer. You should get what you want because you're paying for it.

Seriously. I'm paying for someone rummage around in my hoo-ha? I get to pick who does that.

I'm sure some are working to correct that. Why should TX have all the fun?
/s

Texas isn't the only state to try to do this. There have been several proposed, especially since the 2010 elections.

For a party that campaigned on "jobs, jobs, jobs," the GOTP sure have been focusing a LOT of time on women's uteri.

This is my first comment from a link I seeded last June, but it bears repeating here:

Actually, 64 new anti-abortion laws have passed, with more than 30 of them in April alone. Here's a few:

Arizona:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, also a Republican, signed a new law banning state tax credits for donations to Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers.

Georgia:

A Georgia state representative known for his fringe politics has introduced a radical pro-life bill that not only calls for the nullification of Roe v. Wade, but also makes having a miscarriage a capital offense unless the mother can irrefutably prove that there was “no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such an event.” Laced with misogyny, insensitivity, and pseudo-science, Representative Bobby Franklin’s House Bill 1 (HB1) could be considered ridiculous, if it was not just the latest episode in a frightening turn of right-wing pro-life extremism that targets pregnant women.

HB1 rationalizes that, because “Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death,” the failure of an inseminated egg to come to term should fall under suspicion as an act of “prenatal murder.” So, if Franklin has his way, hospitals would be mandated to report every miscarriage (which, he points out, is known medically as “spontaneous abortion”) to the local police, who would then somehow ascertain the cause of the miscarriage. The burden of proof, in other words, would be placed on the woman who might be mourning the loss of her pregnancy.

Indiana:

The Obama administration prohibited the State of Indiana on Wednesday from carrying out a new state law that cuts off money for Planned Parenthood clinics providing health care to low-income women on Medicaid.

Indiana has hit a new low in the right's attacks on women's reproductive rights. A provision of House Bill 1210 would actually require doctors to tell pregnant women that abortion could increase their risk for breast cancer -- no matter the science.

The abortion/breast cancer connection is controversial at best. Health organizations have refuted the theory. In fact, researchers have found that breast cancer risk increases temporarily when a pregnancy is carried to a full term.

Beyond that, the bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks, force women to view an ultrasound unless they submit a written refusal and targets Planned Parenthood by outlawing state funding for organizations that perform abortions or maintains facilities where women can get abortions.

Mandating the spread of misinformation is irresponsible and reprehensible. Indiana's women deserve accurate information and real reproductive choice. Tell Indiana lawmakers to oppose all bills that attack women's health rights.

Iowa:

Key Iowa Republicans are drafting legislation mirroring a new, more restrictive Nebraska abortion law in an attempt to derail plans of a Nebraska doctor to open a Council Bluffs clinic where late-term abortions would be performed.

A new law took effect Oct. 15 in Nebraska that bans abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, or roughly five months, except in cases in which the mother’s life is in jeopardy.

The Midwest is seeing a wave of new measures intended to give additional protections to fetuses—including a growing number of bills that could make it legal to kill an abortion doctor in the name of protecting an "unborn child."

A South Dakota bill that could have allowed the "justifiable homicide" defense to be used for individuals who murder abortion providers was shelved last week after public outcry. And as my colleagues Daniel Schulman and Nick Baumann reported Thursday morning, a Nebraska lawmaker introduced a very similar bill there. Now legislators in Iowa are have also introduced a pair of bills that would recognize a fetus as a separate person and would permit "deadly force" in the protection of that fetus, as the Iowa Independent's Lynda Waddington reported Thursday

Kansas:

Just this week, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, signed a pair of new Kansas laws that ban abortions (no exceptions) after 21 weeks of pregnancy and that require minors seeking to terminate pregnancies to get consent from both their parents.

Louisiana:

BATON ROUGE, La. -- A group of abortion clinics filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging two new Louisiana abortion laws that require ultrasound exams for all women getting abortions and that bar medical malpractice coverage for doctors who perform elective abortions.

The new ultrasound law not only requires the medical procedure, but also requires that women know they have the option to hear a description of what is seen in the ultrasound, to receive a photograph of the ultrasound image and to view the ultrasound.
There is no exception for victims of rape or incest.

Nebraska:

Nebraska, debates are still alive between pro and anti abortion groups when the last legislative session was marked by the restrictions of abortion. The executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, Julie Schmit-Albin, said has already foreseen the attention that the coming 2011 session will get.egislative session was marked by the restrictions of abortion. The executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, Julie Schmit-Albin, said has already foreseen the attention that the coming 2011 session will get.

A law that has been in effect in October forbids abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy because there have been disputed claims that a fetus can already feel the pain after that point. It is obviously outside the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade that allows abortion between 22 to 24 weeks if the fetus has no viable chance of survival outside the womb.

U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska Republican group is known for pushing for a federal law, same with the officials of National Right to Life introducing similar laws in other states. Schmit-Albin believes that there is more to be done in Nebraska.

New Jersey:

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” (HR 3) that would limit the rape exemption for abortion to “forcible rape” which would have defined many rapes, for example, statutory rape of a minor, as non-forcible and therefore not covered by federal assistance

Pennsylvania:

Representative Joe Pitts (R-PA) introduced a bill (HR 358) would allow states to deny insurance coverage for birth control meaning hospitals could deny abortion procedures and transport to a facility that would provide a woman with an abortion even if failure to provide an abortion would mean the death of the woman

South Dakota:

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in federal court on Friday seeking to block a South Dakota law that would require women seeking abortions to face the nation’s longest waiting period, three days, and undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortion. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to suspend the law from taking effect on July 1 until a final ruling is issued on whether it violates a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.

Texas:

Gov. Rick Perry, a conservative Republican, made the bill, which the Legislature passed on Thursday, a priority and is expected to sign it. The bill requires a doctor to conduct a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and to give the woman the opportunity to see the results and hear the heartbeat of the fetus. Though the woman can choose not to view the images and hear the heartbeat, the doctor must describe what the sonogram shows, including the existence of legs, arms and internal organs. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.

Virginia:

Lawmakers in Virginia approved an amendment Wednesday that would ban private insurance plans from covering abortions if they participate in a state health care exchange under President Obama’s new health care law.

The amendment, proposed by Gov. Bob McDonnell and passed by both the State House and Senate on Wednesday, states that no insurance plan sold as part of the state health care exchange could cover abortion except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life.

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

House Republicans continued Wednesday with their efforts to dismantle the health care law. On a 251-to-175 vote, the House approved a bill prohibiting federal money to be used for insurance plans that cover abortions. The bill goes beyond current federal law, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. It would also wipe out tax breaks for private employers who provide coverage if their plans offer abortion services and would eliminate the ability to pay for an abortion with pretax dollars from a flexible spending plan. Voting 235 to 191, the House blocked money for construction of school-based health centers that had been earmarked in the health care act.

Sorry Physicist Retired, I just realized that I probably shouldn't be copying something I wrote before into your thead....hope I didn't irritate you there.

Thanks for all that Colodomom. Knowing all of those individually is something, seeing it all together like that is stunning. Wow.

I agree with you Marty. The government should not be allowed to violate your body with an object. Total government intrusion. Next step is a register of pregnant women like in Brazil.

Here the thing about all this crap...If a woman is that set on getting an abortion....no ultrasound in the world, no lecture from a doctor is going to change that. Bottom Line! If a specific doctor refuses....that patient will go elsewhere....some doctor for a price...will do it. it will do nothing to stop abortions....maybe....maybe it will cause a second thought...but in the end...if that's what they want to do...they will go through with it.

~A

I agree Marty. I questioned the veracity of that argument when I heard that was how they were going to present it. This law fails to protect the rights of women to not have to be subjected to and pay for unnecessary medical procedures.

They chose a weak position to fight this law. I expected that it would fail.

The doctors brought the suit, not the pro-choice groups. That's why it was a doctors' rights suit.

I wonder if they were just trying to charge a little more by requiring this proceedure and given themselves a little bit of guaranteed extra income. (I could be wrong though.)

Lissa the docs were against the law...rightfully so. :)

*face palm* I just went back and reread the article. I take back comment #22.5. Yup, I was wrong. Thanks, Fireryone. I agree with the doctors then.

If the doctor feels I need one (and can explain why to me), I would get one of these sonograms. That is something for my doctor and me to decide, not some politician who has the motive of collecting votes who doesn't know me from any other person.

I would favor a law that says doctors should just go back to practicing medicine, period, and knock off all this extraneous stuff that is political, religious, or stupid.

look up the law and see the lies they are requiring docs to tell theit patients. It is pretty dsgusting. It begs an answer to the question...if other medical professional re allowed a conscience claause that allows them to not r have to do things they disagee with...then why cant this law be fought using that same law?

Themselves? Even then, I think I'd give long odds....

Safely please.

I'm in the middle of menopause so I'm nearly done having to worry about this issue on a personal level. Throughout my entire 'fertile' period, abortion was safe, legal and not very difficult to obtain should I have been of the mind to avail myself of said services.

I enjoyed freedom of choice regarding reproduction. While I've never had an abortion, I had the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE for myself what I felt was best for me. It sure as heck would be nice if my daughter, the whole of her generation and future generations of women had the same rights and freedoms I have enjoyed so thoroughly thanks to the generation(s) of women that came before me.

daMamma--

So well said. I also want my daughter to be able to choose when and if she produces another human.

Thank you.

It seems that the Religious Reich figures bipolar schizophrenics are more capable of making sound decisions than women.

The only cases where I'd see that as possible are the individual women who actually vote for these theocratic activist politicians.