Abortion advocates have created a firestorm of criticism for itself by making the wild-eyed claim that allowing women in Virginia a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn child before the abortion is akin to rape.
However, new information has surfaced showing the abortion business already does pre-abortion ultrasounds on women to determine the age of the unborn child prior to the abortion — making it so the abortion business, in its own words, “rapes” women already. The question then becomes whether or not women will be allowed to see the ultrasound image or heart the audio of the heartbeat of their baby.
Alana Goodman of Commentary magazine says Planned Parenthood provides the following on a telephone hotline:
“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.
Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”
“From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying,” Goodman writes. “In other words, the real reason pro-choicers oppose the law isn’t because of the “invasiveness” or “creepiness” of ultrasounds. It can’t be it. Virginia Planned Parenthood clinics already include them in its abortion procedures.”
As pro-life blogger Jill Stanek notes, the ultrasound bill in Virginia in question doesn’t mandate that an ultrasound is performed — essentially because Planned Parenthood already does them.
“There is nothing in HB 462 that mandates the use of transvaginal ultrasound rather than abdominal ultrasound, but pro-aborts have swarmed around this possibility comparing it to rape,” she says.
“Early in a pregnancy – 4-8ish weeks depending on several factors, including the girth of the mother – a baby’s age cannot be ascertained by other than a transvaginal ultrasound,” Stanek explains. “And this has been determined necessary for the safety of mothers in Virginia based on previous disciplinary actions against abortionists for grossly misjudging a baby’s age.”
Stanek points out that in 1999, the state medical board disciplined abortion practitioner Mi Yong Kim for beginning the abortion of a mother she believed was 8 weeks pregnant via pelvic exam, only to have to stop the abortion because the baby was much larger.
“A hospital ultrasound determined the baby was actually 26-4/7 weeks, and still alive. Kim performed a hysterotomy without further consulting the mother and delivered the dead baby, who weighed a little over 2 pounds, consistent with the measured gestational age,” she notes.
In 2006 the Virginia Board of Medicine suspended the license of abortionist Reffat K. Abofreka for underestimating the age of one unborn child and missing a mass on another baby.
“In January 2006 Abofreka began the abortion of a baby he thought was 12 weeks old by pelvic exam only to find the baby was much larger. The baby was later delivered alive at a hospital measuring 23-2/7 weeks but died,” Stanek noted. “In 2005 Abofreka performed no diagnostic tests whatsoever and began an abortion of a patient. When Abofreka could not get “a satisfactory amount of tissue during the procedure,” he wondered if this was instead an ectopic pregnancy and performed an ultrasound, whereupon discovering a cystic mass between the uterus and left ovary. At the hospital it was determined there was indeed a mass and also a 6-6/7 week old baby. Whether the baby lived or died is unknown.”
