Showing posts with label Prenatal tests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prenatal tests. Show all posts
Live Action strikes again -- gendercide in NYC!
Note how the PP refers to a baby's gender as "the sex of the pregnancy." YouTube
This was filmed at PP's flagship "Margaret Sanger" clinic!
Related: Major networks ignore sting
Looking for ultrasound statistics?
Email me and I'll send you a Word doc with some information that I recently pulled together.
Judge strikes down Oklahoma ultrasound law as unconstitutional
Judge strikes down Oklahoma ultrasound law as unconstitutional | Tulsa World: Oklahoma County District Judge Bryan Dixon declared the law unconstitutional in a summary judgment handed down Wednesday. The law would have required doctors or their technicians to show pregnant women ultrasound images of their fetuses and discuss those images with the women before abortions were performed.
Related: The “reasoning” behind the decision to enjoin Oklahoma’s Ultrasound Act
'via Blog this'
Related: The “reasoning” behind the decision to enjoin Oklahoma’s Ultrasound Act
'via Blog this'
Law professors explain why ultrasound laws are constitutional
Ultrasound laws are constitutional - Philly.com: Whether ultrasound laws represent good policy or are effective, though, is a separate question from whether such laws are constitutional. Under the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, states have a right "to ensure that a woman apprehend the full consequences of her decision" and can require physicians to provide "truthful and not misleading" information about the abortion procedure and the development of the fetus.
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Abortion patients unhappy with Texas sonogram law
Sentinel Source: Women seeking abortions at Whole Woman’s Health in south Fort Worth often arrive upset or angry about Texas’ new sonogram law, which began being fully enforced three weeks ago, a health center official says.
Some are unhappy about the requirement that a physician must describe the fetus during a sonogram. But it’s the hardship of having to schedule two appointments — one for the sonogram and another for the surgery at least 24 hours later — that draws the most consistent ire.
Proponents of the law, however, say the delay merely guarantees that women have complete and informed consent before making a potentially life-altering decision.
Some are unhappy about the requirement that a physician must describe the fetus during a sonogram. But it’s the hardship of having to schedule two appointments — one for the sonogram and another for the surgery at least 24 hours later — that draws the most consistent ire.
Proponents of the law, however, say the delay merely guarantees that women have complete and informed consent before making a potentially life-altering decision.
Crying Rape: Pro-choice advocates should quit calling ultrasounds rape
Carol Joffe, Slate.com: As a sociologist who has long studied and supported the pro-choice movement—and chronicled the rise of its opponents—I am heartened by the rare sight of a partial retreat by anti-abortion forces, and by evidence of new energy among abortion rights supporters. . . . But I have considerable concerns about what calling these ultrasounds “rape” and “unnecessary” will mean for abortion patients and providers. The reality is that most abortion patients do receive an ultrasound to date their pregnancies. Since most abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy, many of these ultrasounds are performed with a transvaginal probe, the most effective method for viewing early-stage pregnancies. In the end, whether an ultrasound is performed, and which method is used, reflects either the practice of the abortion provider, the patient’s medical history, or—for a relatively small number of women—an aversion to the transvaginal method. Most of the time, however, the transvaginal ultrasound is a useful and common tool that helps providers perform abortions safely and well.
Ultrasound trainer
Kim Hardy, MA, RT(R), RDMS, trains nurses, NP/PA, and physicians to perform limited OB
ultrasounds. She's based in Grand Haven, Michigan, but will travel. She's worked with Mission Pre-Born and other organizations.
Fears hundreds of healthy babies are being aborted every year simply because of scan blunders
Hundreds of mothers-to-be a year are being wrongly told they have lost their baby because of mistakes in reading ultrasound scans, doctors fear. Some of the 400 women given a wrong diagnosis each year will choose to wait to see if they go on to miscarry naturally but others will take the option of terminating the pregnancy. Last night the researchers said that the possibility of an ‘inadvertent termination’ was the ‘worst possible outcome for any woman’ and called for the guidelines used to determine miscarriages to be changed immediately. Daily Mail
Study: Hundreds of U.K. Women Wrongly Told They Had Miscarriages
Scientists said ultrasound checks are resulting in some women with perfectly healthy pregnancies wrongly being told that their baby died in the womb. Women then usually would have a termination.If women experience pain or bleeding during a pregnancy, doctors scan the gestational sac inside the womb. If there is no embryo or the fetus has no heartbeat, they diagnose a miscarriage.
But where there is doubt, doctors are advised to measure the size of the gestational sac seven to 10 days later. If the sac has not grown, a miscarriage is assumed to have occurred. FoxNews
Related: Improve miscarriage guidelines to prevent misdiagnosis
Editor: This is disturbing.
But where there is doubt, doctors are advised to measure the size of the gestational sac seven to 10 days later. If the sac has not grown, a miscarriage is assumed to have occurred. FoxNews
Related: Improve miscarriage guidelines to prevent misdiagnosis
Editor: This is disturbing.
Twin saved her sister's life
Scans had revealed that one of the girls, Kiki, had a heart problem and fluid was leaking from the placenta. But miraculously her sister Nico positioned herself so low in the womb that she acted as a plug, preventing a miscarriage or an infection. Daily Mail
Gender Test Works, Could Lead to Sex-Selection Abortions
The Intelligender test kit, one of a handful of different kinds, has prompted concerns over the last few years that it could lead to an increase in the use of sex-selection abortions. Australian pharmacies began selling the kit years ago and it eventually made its way to New Zealand — claiming to be able to detect the gender of an unborn child when used. The test kit makers claim the test offers a 90 percent accuracy rate in determining the sex of the baby after eight weeks into the pregnancy. Also sold in the United States since 2006, the test takes 10 minutes and supposedly identifies a “confidential element” found in the hormones of a pregnant woman when she is carrying a girl. When a pregnant woman’s urine is mixed with the chemicals in the kit, it supposedly turns green or black to indicate a boy and orange or yellow to indicate a girl.
Family exploited to promote late-term abortions
In Nebraska and Iowa, mainstream media outlets are continuing to exploit the story of a Nebraska family to blast an innovative law banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy — that has sparked similar legislation across the country — to promote late abortions.
The Des Moines Register published an article about Danielle and Robb Deavers. They were advised that their baby could have severe complications from the lack of amniotic fluid and that it was painful for the baby to remain in her mother’s womb because there was no amniotic fluid to cushion her. Because LB 1103, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, went into effect in Nebraska in October, 2010, both the Deavers’ physician and a maternal-fetal specialist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center said they could not induce labor as it would violate the new law. The Deavers’ story is being used by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland as a reason to oppose legislation like Nebraska’s which has been introduced in other States.
Here is the story of another Nebraska couple, Robert and Lisa Wolf of Lincoln, who faced the same condition (Preterm Premature Rupture of Membrane, PPROM) with their unborn child. Not every PPROM diagnosis ends tragically. The Wolf’s daughter, Jenna, was born at 32 weeks gestation, weighing 3 pounds, 6 ounces. The Wolfs support Nebraska’s unborn baby pain ban and hope that other States are successful in passing Nebraska’s law.
How Ultrasound Changed the Human Sex Ratio
The technology that ultimately became the dominant method of sex selection around the world began as a tool for navigation. . . . To the 1960s public the technology looked positively futuristic. Around the time pregnancy became a choice rather than an inevitability and the business of having children became about more than generating labor for the farm, we began seeking ways to bond with our babies before birth. An image on which to pin parental hopes made that task a whole lot easier, and so it was a breakthrough to have a preview, however muddled, of the baby growing inside a mother’s uterus. . . .
But public fascination also provided a window for criticism, and ultrasound elicited substantial ethical deliberation. Some critics feared overly powerful scientists. Feminists pushing for abortion rights fretted, justifiably, that the machine humanized the fetus. Others worried the new reproductive technology would be exploited by governments intent on manipulating their populations; the Nazis, after all, had screened newlyweds for genetic diseases in their eugenics program. What if the power to create "superbabies" fell into the hands of an evil dictator? But none of these critiques came close to identifying what turned out to be ultrasound’s most pernicious threat. In hindsight, 1960s Americans worried about everything except the possibility that average parents, emboldened by the new knowledge technology brought them, might make small, seemingly innocuous choices—and that those choices, taken together, would add up to disaster.
Excerpt from Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men by Mara Hvistendahl. Scientific American
But public fascination also provided a window for criticism, and ultrasound elicited substantial ethical deliberation. Some critics feared overly powerful scientists. Feminists pushing for abortion rights fretted, justifiably, that the machine humanized the fetus. Others worried the new reproductive technology would be exploited by governments intent on manipulating their populations; the Nazis, after all, had screened newlyweds for genetic diseases in their eugenics program. What if the power to create "superbabies" fell into the hands of an evil dictator? But none of these critiques came close to identifying what turned out to be ultrasound’s most pernicious threat. In hindsight, 1960s Americans worried about everything except the possibility that average parents, emboldened by the new knowledge technology brought them, might make small, seemingly innocuous choices—and that those choices, taken together, would add up to disaster.
Excerpt from Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men by Mara Hvistendahl. Scientific American
How far would YOU go to choose the sex of your child?
One of the most popular destinations for the burgeoning gender selection tourism industry is the United States, where PGD is legal almost everywhere. And as this reporter found out, PGD is only too easy to arrange, without even the need for a medical referral. "After five minutes on Google, I had identified several clinics close to Los Angeles. One quick phone call later and I was booked in for a $150 consultation at the prestigious Tyler Medical Clinic, just a stone’s throw from the exclusive shopping area of Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills." Daily Mail
What do you make of this?
The Michigan government website has a document listing centers offering free ultrasounds. Hmmmm.
Hospital wrongly told two devastated women their unborn babies were dead
Joanna Barro, 25,was devastated when doctors at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital said they were '100 per cent sure' her baby was dead at her eight-week scan. She was preparing to go through a traumatic internal procedure to clear her system a week later when a shocked nurse found a heartbeat and told her the pregnancy was fine. Miss Barro went on to give birth to a happy, healthy baby girl, Ruby, now three.
Earlier this week, the same Sussex hospital was forced to apologise to pregnant Sofia Taylor after it allegedly advised her to terminate her failed pregnancy. Daily Mail
Related: Miracle or Mistake?
Ultrasound bill approved by MI Senate
West Michigan News from the Grand Haven Tribune a Michigan Newspaper: The Michigan Senate approved legislation Wednesday to require abortion facilities to provide images as clear and detailed as possible to mothers who opt for an ultrasound while considering an abortion.
Related: Just ask to see the ultrasound
Summer issue of At the Center online now!
- Centerboard: Trusting During Tough Times
- Abortion in Our Midst: Helping Post-Abortive Women Find God's Healing
- Recognizing and Dealing with 'Fake Clients'
- The Church and the Single Mom
- Perinatal Hospice: Ministering to the Needs of a Unique Group of Post-Abortive Women
- Marketing 101: Community Redefined - Social Networks
- . . . and more!
Ultrasound Laws Protect Women's Health, Stop Abortions, Provide Window to the Womb
In recent years, pro-life advocates have enjoyed tremendous success at the state level in facilitating and encouraging the adoption of ultrasound requirements. Nineteen states have already enacted ultrasound requirements, and nearly a dozen states have considered ultrasound-related measures in 2010. However, as with any important policy initiative, there continues to be debate within the pro-life movement as to the best approach for making ultrasounds available to women before abortion. Importantly, there are more areas of agreement than disagreement. LifeNews
This opinion column is a response to Stopping Abortion: A Different Take on Legislation Promoting Ultrasounds, written by pro-life NIFLA attorney Tom Glessner.
This opinion column is a response to Stopping Abortion: A Different Take on Legislation Promoting Ultrasounds, written by pro-life NIFLA attorney Tom Glessner.
A Different Take on Legislation Promoting Ultrasounds
Efforts have been made in various state legislatures in the last few years to pass laws that would mandate that information about the availability of ultrasound be given to a woman before she can obtain abortion. These well- intended laws are deficient in major areas and are not the most effective means to insure that an abortion-minded mother benefits from the powerful impact of ultrasound.
All of these laws require that certain ultrasound information be given to the woman, by the abortionist doctor – the one who is going to financially benefit from the decision to abort! How objective and credible is such a person going to be? A second criticism of the laws passed is that they compel a mother to receive information that she may not wish to have. Finally, an examination of many of the laws actually passed show that they are inadequate in ensuring that a woman contemplating abortion will actually see an ultrasound image of her child.
NIFLA strongly recommends that proposed ultrasound legislation include the concerns that a mother be informed of whether she has a viable pregnancy. The law should require that before a woman undergoes an abortion that she receive a medical opinion that her pregnancy is a viable pregnancy. This, of course, can only be done by an ultrasound exam. The importance of this information lies in the fact that if the pregnancy is not viable then she will miscarry and need not succumb to the brutal abortion procedure.
Second, the law should specifically state that the physician providing the medical opinion regarding the viability of the pregnancy be a physician who does not have a vested financial interest in the abortion decision. This would mean that the woman, before having an abortion, would have to be referred to another medical facility to undergo the ultrasound to determine the viability of the pregnancy. In practical terms, she would be able go to a pro-life PRC medical clinic that provides free ultrasound exams to get this information. LifeNews
All of these laws require that certain ultrasound information be given to the woman, by the abortionist doctor – the one who is going to financially benefit from the decision to abort! How objective and credible is such a person going to be? A second criticism of the laws passed is that they compel a mother to receive information that she may not wish to have. Finally, an examination of many of the laws actually passed show that they are inadequate in ensuring that a woman contemplating abortion will actually see an ultrasound image of her child.
NIFLA strongly recommends that proposed ultrasound legislation include the concerns that a mother be informed of whether she has a viable pregnancy. The law should require that before a woman undergoes an abortion that she receive a medical opinion that her pregnancy is a viable pregnancy. This, of course, can only be done by an ultrasound exam. The importance of this information lies in the fact that if the pregnancy is not viable then she will miscarry and need not succumb to the brutal abortion procedure.
Second, the law should specifically state that the physician providing the medical opinion regarding the viability of the pregnancy be a physician who does not have a vested financial interest in the abortion decision. This would mean that the woman, before having an abortion, would have to be referred to another medical facility to undergo the ultrasound to determine the viability of the pregnancy. In practical terms, she would be able go to a pro-life PRC medical clinic that provides free ultrasound exams to get this information. LifeNews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)