Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have seen all of my u/s with the exception of the one I had to demand to see when I was in a car accident at 16 weeks pregnant and went to the ER. All you have to do is ask. The tech cannot make diagnoses, but can point out structures.
I don't think a tech would let you see the screen if they are looking for cysts or tumors, let alone point out structures. Would you consider a tumor a stucture?
They are going to point out my ovary....so I can obviosly see a growth on it, yet they are not allowed to tell me they see a growth on it? I just don't think they would be allowed to do that.
I don't think a tech would let you see the screen if they are looking for cysts or tumors, let alone point out structures. Would you consider a tumor a stucture?
They are going to point out my ovary....so I can obviosly see a growth on it, yet they are not allowed to tell me they see a growth on it? I just don't think they would be allowed to do that.
At least in my state, they are not allowed to point them out by law. Techs cannot read a scan to the patients. Ever.
What is disgusting is that pro-abortionists advocate killing the life over putting the baby up for adoption so it can have a loving home. And don't feed me crap about how there are so many kids in foster care. As someone who has looked into domestic adoption of an infant, I can say the waiting lists are a mile long. The ones who end up in foster care are born to parents who are screwups but decide they want to try to be a parent an get their welfare checks and end up getting the kid(s) taken away. Many of these are minorities, and statistically speaking, there are fewer black adoptive parents than white ones, so they end up in the system.
So, women should be forced to go through with a pregnancy to provide someone with an infant. That would fit the definition of breeding stock....or slavery. I find that disgusting.
Why is it that people who love "life" don't want to extend that love to all children who need homes, only infants? Kinda like picking out what kind of dog you want, isn't it?
I am still curious how anyone can make me look at or listen to anything againt my will. If I were the woman I would simple ignore it since I would have already made my choice and no amount of coersion by the State would change that. You can require the test, but you cannot force anyone to look or listen or discuss anything. Stupid politicians think they can force people into anything, sorry folks it is not that easy or simple.
On top of that I would not claim it on my insurance, let the state pay for it if they feel it is that necessary, and since neiter the patient nor the doctor requested the test, the state would probably lose in a civil case since they are the ones that said perform the test.
It will be a bright day in Texas when Perry is gone, much of his stupdity will be undone.
Again, most pregnancies are not high risk and most that are high risk are uneventful.
I actually went through a lot while I was pregnant, 2 car accidents, horrible morning sickness for entire first trimester, unable to sleep for the last two months, extreme exhaustion for the first three, unbearable upper right quadrant pain for 3 months, swelling, "baby brain," unable to work.... Then the baby got stuck during delivery and I had to have an emergency episiotomy and forceps delivery. Don't tell me how "lucky" I was. I contend that pregnancy is not "suffering."
And who supported you while you were unable to work?
Do you think all women have someone to take care of them?
Some women would have lost their jobs and ended up stuck on welfare living in a nasty slum somewhere with a baby.
Note that they did not rule the law constitutional. Instead, they're simply saying it can be enforced while it's being challenged.
I don't want this to turn into another general abortion thread and hope that discussion is limited to this ruling, the laws in question, and similar laws or proposals in other states.
So, doctors have to make sure the patient is fully informed about their medical condition before they can perform surgery. If a doctor was going to cut off my foot I'd like some detailed information before he/she lopped it off too.
There are some unethical doctors out there, who create phony prognosis for surgery, just to make a buck. This will prevent doctors from claiming a woman is pregnant, when she isn't, just to pad his wallet. I remember Obama regaling stories of how doctors were removing perfectly good tonsils and telling people they had diabetes, and cutting off perfectly good feet, just to pad their wallets.
They don't have to look at the screen, either. Big whoop. It is less invasive than the procedure to kill the life inside...btw, I do not know firsthand but I imagine the abortion is ultrasound-guided.[/quote]
Some are, some aren't, it is up to the doctor.....as it should be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
