Friday, March 16, 2012

Too Much (Inaccurate) Information

Daily News Columnist Ronnie Polaneczky talks about her transvaginal sonogram with Pa. Attorney General candidate Kathleen Kane, who has had one too. Both are outraged about a proposed new state law that would require women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram first.
Kane found her ultrasounds "invasive, uncomfortable and often humiliating." My experience was similar, despite the sensitivity, kindness and professionalism of the technician administering the diagnostic test. 
It's hard to hang onto your dignity when you're naked from the waist down, your feet are in stirrups and your vagina is being probed with a 10-inch wan
Yes, well, we all are put in undignified positions when it comes to protecting our health. But what do the sort of invasive examinations so vividly described by Polaneczky have to do with House Bill 1077? There is nothing in the bill that requires ANY woman to have a "transvaginal" sonogram. I just read it. All it requires is a standard pregnancy sonogram, which is completely non-invasive.

In fact the New York Times lists the types of sonograms on its Health Page. A pregnancy sonogram provides images of the fetus. A transvaginal is, and I quote "used to look at a woman's reproductive organs, including the uterus, ovaries, cervix, and vagina."

Both Polanecsky and Kane had these procedures done for their own reproductive health concerns. But they had nothing to do with determining anything about a fetus, abortion or anyone's right to informed consent.

I am personally against such a legal requirement when it comes to a woman procuring an abortion. 

Though I am all for informed consent, clearly this law is designed to discourage abortion by creating another hoop for women to jump through. 

But I am even more against people in the media misrepresenting the truth about what the law would require.

You have to read down a ways in Polanecsky's piece, past all the "transvaginal" talk, to get to this: 
The ultrasound wouldn't always be the version in which a transponder is run over a woman's belly, since that test may not yield the information called for by the bill. So the woman could be forced to undergo the more invasive transvaginal version.
"Could be?" Really? Sez who? And by whom? Who is going to force this theoretical woman to undergo the more invasive procedure? The caring folks at Planned Parenthood who perform the vast majority of abortions in this state? 

This is pure hooey. And it continues...
The forced test has been likened to rape (why not add candlelight and Barry White, and call it date rape?). But since it's being pushed in a bill sponsored by a gaggle of anti-choicers, the bill has been cynically dubbed "The Woman's Right-to-Know Act."
The bill IS being pushed by a gaggle of anti-choicers. But it is being fought by a gaggle of pro-choicers who are twisting and flat-out lying about what the bill requires.

It's possible that some who have come out against the bill are just confused. 

For instance, in an editorial in the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal says... 
But the wording of HB 1077 is specific in that it requires the attending physician to measure the gestational sac if an embryo is too small to be seen. An external ultrasound cannot effectively measure the gestational sac in women who are less than 12 weeks pregnant — which is when most abortions are performed.
         That usually requires a transvaginal ultrasound.

Here's what the actual wording of the bill says: 
"When only the gestational sac is visible during an ultrasound test, gestational age may be based upon measurement of the gestational sac."
Get it? The doctor gets to estimate the age of the fetus based on on what is visible on the ultrasound. The law does't require him/her to do another, more invasive test. What part of "may be" don't these people understand?

Polanecsky credits our own state Rep. Tom Killion for bailing on the bill, which she again inaccurately claims contains a "mandate" for "an invasive medical test."

Candidate Kane incredibly and dumbly compares the requiring of a sonogram before an abortion to an "illegal search." This is certainly ironic, given that most prenatal testing is done to find out if there is anything wrong with the fetus - like Down syndrome, for instance - so that it can be quickly destroyed and disposed of. Such legal "search and destroy" missions are now common place in America.

Polanecsky wraps up her column congratulating Kane - and by extension, herself - for being willing to discuss such uncomfortably, personal things.
I applaud Kane for going public about something many women would be too squeamish to discuss. And I hope more women follow her example.
If we don't tell it like it is, those Harrisburg yahoos will never get it.
This isn't telling it like it is. It's telling it like it isn't. There's a word for that.

UPDATE: When similar complaints about Virginia's sonogram law were raised it's sponsors simply included language saying no transvaginal sonograms would be required. That bill was signed into a few weeks ago. Again, I'm personally against such a requirement. But I'm also against such phony claims being asserted in and by the media.


Blogger Dannytheman said...

When you are losing a standard common sense argument, lie. That is always the answer from people who know they are in a serious minority. I see it with the anti gun groups all the time. They lose when facts are used, so they make up lies and describe them as facts.

March 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

It happens on Spencerblog too. From your side. Ficticious polls, inflated numbers, false accusations.....and Danny, you think people who want stricter gun control laws are in the minority? Or is it that the power of the gun lobby is overwhelming.

March 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM 
Blogger CharlieSix said...

Danny: Not sure how you'll answer Bob's question but my view is that it is the former, not the latter...

March 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Charlie - You recently posted an O'Reilly video that accuses the Obama administration of planning the Sandra Fluke fiasco to divert attention from other issues. O'Reilly offered no proof, and O'Reilly offered no explanation as to how they managed to get Limbaugh to cooperate with their plan. A perfect example of what we're talking about.

March 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

And maybe Gil is doing the same thing by posting something like this on Spencerblog. Gil writes "I am personally against such a legal requirement when it comes to a woman procuring an abortion." and yet I don't recall even one Gil Spencer column written in opposition to this legislation. All he does is post things like this to divert attention from the real issue.

March 16, 2012 at 10:13 PM 
Blogger Dannytheman said...

Just for the record. I posted my poll number when I found them. The rest is only conjecture from you.

I only want the laws followed, Bob. There are over 50,000 gun laws. Think about that, 50,000. There will be over 70,000 people visiting the NRA convention in St. Louis next month, and as in years past, no one will shoot anyone.

Lies are different from playing with the numbers by the way.
In this story the woman obviously lies and says the procedure is invasive. (You might call it misleading) But it is an obvious lie, stated to scare other woman.

Obama loses in November.

March 17, 2012 at 8:16 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Just for the record Danny, you never did locate and post the poll that you claimed had Cain leading Obama after Cain dropped out of the race. I asked you for it, you never found it. Everything is archived, so if you want to put money on this one, count me in.

March 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

And of course lies are different than playing with the numbers. Yea right Danny. You can lie by fudging the numbers just as well as you can lie by fudging the facts. The world according to Danny.

March 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Danny - Don't get too caught up in your own lies. Go back to your post of Dec. 2011 "Democrats Rule will end soon"

March 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM 
Blogger Dannytheman said...

Just wait until November. I will except your apology then.

March 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Apology for what? You're morphing into jake.

March 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM 
Anonymous Buying Runescape Gold said...

Imagine that the Runescape Gold has been run out when you are playing in full swing.This must be the worst thing ever happened to you. At this moment, the instant way to buy cheap Buy Runescape Gold is at GamesWorth. Our safe and fast delivery has won us a worldwide reputation.

March 18, 2012 at 2:15 AM 
Blogger Dannytheman said...

The apology for you being so wrong about the direction this country is now running towards. You buying in to, almost, the entire plan and choosing incorrectly IMHO to stand up for the wrong side.

jake, and I share one thing, knowledge and facts. You have emotions and statistics.

Remember, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

March 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Danny - Let me get this straight. You want me to apologize for expressing my opinion? I'm sorry. I thought I was living in America.

March 18, 2012 at 10:40 AM 
Blogger CharlieSix said...

Bob, you are living in America and you have the right to express your opinions. My late father taught me that it is critical that we defend the right or our opponents to be wrong. How wrong are you? Let me count the ways. You are wrong to the depth and breadth and height my soul can reach.

March 18, 2012 at 10:12 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 18, 2012 at 11:19 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Charlie - That being the case, it's quite minimal

March 18, 2012 at 11:24 PM 
Blogger Dannytheman said...

You know what they say about opinions.

Opinions are like A**holes.
Everyone has one and most of them stink.

I do respect you right to have an opinion. Even though I recognize it as being wrong most of the time!

March 19, 2012 at 8:45 AM 
Blogger CharlieSix said...

You say my soul is minimal, Bob? I'm not aware that we have ever met in person, that you have ever had the chance to look me in the eyes and make an informed decision about my soul. So how can you say that my soul is minimal? By making such a trash talk statement you make yourself and your diversionary comments minimalistic. But, as I said, I was taught by a very good man to defend those who may disagree with me for their right to be wrong. Wrong is one thing. Challenging another blogger's soul is something else. But that's apparently what your type does.

March 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Congratulations Chuck - You've just won this weeks Drama Queen award!

March 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM 
Blogger Dannytheman said...

Damn, I wanted that award!!!

March 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Don't worry Danny. You're in the running, but the competition is stiff.

March 21, 2012 at 3:28 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home