A bill that would require a woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound took another step toward passage in the Virginia Senate Monday — but not before outnumbered Democrats rose to express their opposition in clinical terms.
Sen. Janet D. Howell, D-Fairfax proposed an amendment — that any man seeking prescription medication for erectile dysfunction must first submit to a digital rectal exam and cardiac stress test.
Howell told colleagues on the Senate floor that she was proposing the amendment because Senate Bill 484 requires women “to have an unnecessary medical procedure, it’s adding to the cost and it’s opening them up for emotional blackmail.”
“I think we should just have a little gender equity here,” Howell added.
Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel, R-Fauquier, sponsor of the bill that would require an ultrasound, responded: “I do believe that erectile dysfunction, in this context, is different from pregnancy.”
The Senate defeated Howell’s amendment 22-18. Vogel’s bill then advanced on a voice vote to its third reading. It is expected to clear the full Senate Tuesday and head to the GOP-dominated House.
Howell was among seven Democrats on the Education and Health Committee last week who voted to defeat the bill, which passed 8-7 along party lines.
Proponents said it was a necessary part of the informed consent component to the procedure and important to determine the gestational age of the fetus.
Abortion-rights advocates countered that the measure, which also instructs a provider to ask the woman if she wishes to view the ultrasound, was unnecessary and violates the doctor-patient relationship.
Vogel is correct. Erectile dysfunction is different from pregnancy. Pregnancy is unique. There is nothing like it. Even one pregnancy is often very different from another. I have had 2. Both were as different as day and night. However, it makes more sense for men suffering from erectile dysfunction to undergo a stress test medically than it does for a woman to undergo an ultra sound before an abortion. Notice which bill passed and which failed.
Howell makes a good analogy however. She should have made a list of requirements for vasectomy. The point here is that once again, anti-choice advocates are dictating that women be forced to undergo unnecessary and costly medical procedures. Having an ultra-sound will just add to the cost of the procedure. Many women have enough trouble scrapping up the cash for the procedure in the first place.
What is the purpose? The first goal is to make abortion unaffordable for some women. If that doesn’t work then they hope for plan B. What they really hope for is that the woman will jump off the table and go screaming out of the office. Mission accomplished. No abortion.
It is my greatest hope that the health care reform will cover the cost of the ultra sound. It should since an ultra sound really has nothing to do with abortion. Meanwhile, anti choice forces keep whittling away at reproductive rights, including the ultimate right to contraception. Sometimes Virginians need to get batted around a bit before they get it. After they lose enough rights, Virginia women will sit up and pay attention rather than falling asleep at the switch.
You don’t have to have an abortion to realize why its an important option to keep open to women.
and these are the same people that get up and talk about reducing regulations, and how regulations are making business run out of the State. If they cannot get their way through a law, they will create enough regulations to make it impossible to do business. Why not let the free market decide if there should be abortions or not. And, Yes, Moon, I think you are correct that the ultrasound will be covered by ones current insurance plan, so that we are all now subsidizing the ultrasounds required for an abortion – that does not sit easy with me, but I do not support the legislation to begin with.
Totally agree Pat.
They cannot outlaw abortion so they will make it unattainable. Shut clinics down by making it too difficult to become a mini hospital and now making it too expensive to get one. Ultra sound isn’t cheap.
Now we are subsidizing a medical procedure that is totally unnecessary.
Throw in defunding places that offer contraception and closing the check books, where possible, for types of support for poor families. Where is the logic?
I also have recently heard all the BS and bluster about what anti choicers do for pregnant women. I think maybe they have to be the ‘right’ faith. Additionally, what is done for women who are struggling to make end meet, work, find decent child care, etc. Food, clothing, a roof over ones head and child care so the parent can work is all very expensive. I don’t see anti choicers doing JACK about these expenses.
Why a DRE and not a PSA?
Trying to understand the Senators line of thinking..
marin, please interpret. When I had my kids I don’t think they even had ultra sound.
So, let me get this straight. If I go in to try and get a Viagra prescription I can get a free prostrate massage from a hot nurse?
God bless you Sen. Howell, sign me up!
@Cato, I think you mean prostAte, although you might be prostrate while this is happening.
Ok. I agree with you here. I may be pro-life, but it makes no sense to require unneeded procedures, particularly I this era of high healthcare costs.
The Senator is talking about mandating a Digital Rectal Exam (DRE) for men looking with ED I would assume (outside of his want to literally have something shoved into the rectum of male Virginians) would be to look for prostate cancer. I would say if the Senator was serious about prostate cancer that maybe instead of a DRE that a Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) test would be less expensive and invasive. It also would require less logistical support as the test would be conducted at a for-profit lab.
I guess I want to understand the Senators logic here.
marin – her logic here is that if the Senate is going to require an necessary medical test for a woman, before treatment – then in all fairness, they should also require an unnecessary procedure for a man, although she did mention that the ED commercial did disclose many risks of taking the medication, so a man should really have a stress test and DRE done anyway. The male dominated Senate voted no (for the extra male procedures).
I guess I’m trying to wrap my mind around a few things.
1. That a lawmaker thinks it’s acceptable to literally force objects into our rectums.
2. That a lawmaker thinks that a DRE is somehow equivalent to a non-invasive US (yes I know US can be done by probe but I’m assuming that a probe would not be used for the required procedure)
3. That a lawmaker thinks that a pregnancy and abortion is somehow the ‘same’ as a ED diagnosis.
4. That assuming (far fetched) that a tumor discovered by DRE is somehow the same as the termination of human life.
Hell, even as a pro-choice (ish) type person I’m still scratching my head on #4.
I just don’t think Sen. Howell is very bright. Far from it.
She was being facetious marin, to make a point. Sen. Howell knows there is no comparable analogy for pregnancy. She doesn’t really think that. She is very bright.
So, to prove a political point she wanted peoples fingers up rectums?
…….and this is considered bright?
yes, it is bright. What is the purpose of the proposed law? That, in order to get an abortion, the dr first has to do an ultra-sound, and offer to the patient to see the ultra-sound. Same as requiring abortion clinics to adhere to a stricter standard than other outpatient facilities.
The Republican controlled Senate just voted to Require a Dr to perform a procedure that is not recommended by the AMA. Should a government legislate that a procedure be performed against medical advice? This is unnecessary regulation.
The procedure is an intravaginal sonogram when one wishes to have an abortion.
That is even more invasive than I first thought. @Pat
Where do the legislators get off deciding on what medical procedures to require.
The intent is clear. Hopefully the state will end up in Court. They need to have their pants sued off.
Slate gave Howell a +1
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/01/31/is_virginia_state_sen_janet_howell_a_good_role_model_for_the_left_.html
Pat, I’m short on time. Do you have the URL for the bill? I haven’t seen any news traffic that says it’s an intravaginal sonogram. Any citation?
Also, I disagree with the idea that there is a 24 hour waiting period.
I don’t like the idea of the govt telling me I have to ‘wait’ on something. That goes for guns and abortions.
Here is the URL – http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+sum+SB279
Texas already has a similar bill in place – http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahmoricebrubaker/5559/vaginal_ultrasound_required_for_abortion_in_texas/
The reasoning for the intravaginal sonogram, is that abdominal sonograms do not always detect a pregnancy of less than 8 weeks, so the medical community advise is to perform intravaginal before 8 weeks – if one needs to be performed. On a routine pregnancy, a sonogram is not performed so early. I do not have an issue with a waiting period – educating a person, and making them have time to think it over allows one to really think about it, and not make it a rash decision.
@Pat,
I have a huge problem with it. The people I know who have had an abortion thought of nothing else for weeks on end. I have never known anyone who made a rash decision. They obsessed over it. Everyone I have known found the decision to be agonizing.
The one person I am thinking of in particular thought there was a fetal anomoly. She was waiting on more sensitive testing. She was so worked up I cancelled a vacation so she wouldn’t have to be alone. Yea. Some rash decision. The happy news is everything turned out ok.
Talk to a woman who had an abortion, most will tell you that it was the only “choice” for them and one not taken lightly.
@Pat, thanks.
Ok, it’s actually not as bad as I thought but I still disagree with the waiting period.
My thought is that the govt should not restrict me in obtaining a product or service based on some arbitrary waiting period.
The legislation doesn’t actually call out for an intravaginal but since the US will occur at the time of the abortion it makes sense that it would be an intravaginal US.
Marin, I know you and think you are a very responsible guy. I don’t think you should have a waiting period to buy a gun. However, I sure wish some crazed SOB like Cho had had to wait to buy a gun. I don’t mind waiting to guy a gun if it means that my background is being checked. There is no reason to wait for a background check to have an abortion.
I know pro choice people who hid their pro-choice-ness because the bullying is so bad from the anti choice people. I don’t hide it from anyone and I have been assaulted twice over this issue. That doesn’t count the times my car has been vandalized. I finally stopped the descrete bumper sticker because I was afraid my son would injure someone he found messing with the car. It was for him, not them. What would make a person think it was acceptable (or legal) to go up in someone else’s yard and peel off their bumper sticker?
“What would make a person think it was acceptable (or legal) to go up in someone else’s yard and peel off their bumper sticker?”
The same people that would violate a law or laws anyways.. Waiting periods do nothing. Stop nothing other than lawful purchases but I won’t go off topic..
In my mind if the law says you can have an abortion and a doctor is willing and able to then why not do it then. Why wait? Why go through some sort of mandated cool down?
Makes no sense to me. If my mind is made up and I am a consenting adult – make it so.
FWIW, I thought Cho waited out the 30 days to buy his 2nd gun.
Any word on if the governor signs if PP or any other groups will try to challenge in court?
If they do — will this also invalidate the Virginia Newborn Screening Program?
@Marin
re Cho I don’t know. The only think I know that might have stopped him was for Fairfax County Schools to have been legally able to notify VA Tech of his pyschological problems.
I would like to see a class action lawsuit about the interference. If the pro choice groups fear Roe will be overturned, might as well just get it over with. Right now they are allowing rights to be whittled away. What is happening now is like being pecked to death by a duck, to quote a friend of mine.
This new bill has a built in waiting period.
As for those who came in the yard….I just can’t imagine anything any nervier. My son was laying in wait…not good.
The bill:
SB 484
http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2012/sb484/fulltext/
Ummmm….intravaginal sonograms prior to abortion is nothing new. TEN years ago PP used them for women who chose first trimester abortions. The point of the sonogram is to verify that a) the woman is really pregnant and the positive blood test is not caused by a tumor or another anomaly, b) verify that the pregnancy falls within the legal limits for the clinic as far as termination is concerned c) verify the pregnancy is located in the proper place and not a tubal pregnancy d) verify there are no other issues such as uterine fibroids that can cause an abortion procedure to be high risk. The procedure is usually included in the cost of the procedure, and if the procedure is covered by insurance, the sonogram cost is included as well. There isn’t a waiting period as the sonogram is performed usually immediately prior to the procedure. The patient doesn’t see it. It’s not discussed. It’s just done as a pre op procedure. All info just goes to the person performing procedure.
DB, I don’t believe that was required in Virginia. Do you have any verification on what you have said or where it was performed?