Jackson Jambalaya

This is why legislators need to leave medical issues to the doctors and their patients! Good grief.

Thank you KF

I just read this bill and it is worse than I thought.

The requirement that a doctor be present when an "abortion inducing chemical" is given concerns me.

Define " chemical". Hormones are chemicals that induce abortion, the morning after pill, the birth control pill etc could all be defined as " chemicals".

Will this apply to all chemicals that induce labor? Will ob-gyns have to be at the hospital hours before labor is induced for reasons other than an abortion to end a pregnancy . Abortion is, after all, a MEDICAL term.

They've toyed with the language to try to slip this invasive procedure over on women. Is this language another attempt to get rid of all birth control as the " life begins at conception" language would do?

What was it about the defeat of the Parenthood admendment that these idiots missed?

Interesting. But as Dr. Darryl Hamilton said on the other thread, "Then the question of fetal heart beat detection is raised. How does one do this? The fetal heart starts contracting around 5 weeks post-conception. The only to detect this is with doppler (sic) ultrasound."

While the transvaginal ultrasound is certainly the preferred example for opponents due to its graphic nature, there is the unfortunate existence of the Doppler ultrasound which, being trans-abdominal, is far less invasive.

What does it all mean? This bill would still allow abortionists to pull out the ole Doppler ultrasound, check for a fetal heartbeat, and get right on aborting. Likely without the mother (err, let's just say "woman" to make things a little more sterile) ever having to hear her child's (err, let's say "fetus'") heartbeat.

Huzzah, Christian Doppler! Maybe the sky isn't falling after all.

Thanks for the video ... that sure looked like a regular condom she was putting on the probe before its insertion. Lovely.

I suppose I should be pleased that so little needs reform in Mississippi, that our Legislature has time to dwell upon promoting the birth of yet more (undesired) children.

Doubtless, the "pro-life" folks will now devote state funds to subsidizing day care and promoting employment opportunities for mothers. Because surely this isn't just about persecuting women and regulating their sex lives.

3:21 pm

IF the notorious 78 had wanted to exclude this procedure, they could have.

Unlike you, some of us women understand the difference between the law and the implementation of the law.

Ever heard the saying " Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" ?

You might think " scorned" means rejected in favor of another woman since you are so simplistic, but it means " to show open disdain", " contempt".

This bill scorns women. And, oh yes, we'll be " adult". We will, like the adult women we are, use every tool available to us to " teach" the 78 and demonstrate our strength and will.

You are a religious fanatic. This has nothing to do with WHICH religion as I reminded you in " fetal heartbeat...", it has to do with you being a self-righteous , holier than thou, jerk who thinks they speak for God, and your attempt to impose your narrow view of YOUR religious beliefs( which you delusionally think universal to all Christianity) will result in Heaven on Earth ie the ideations of the clinically mentally ill.

Madam, I am certain that your familiarity with the "clinically mentally ill" exceeds mine by a wide margin. However, your knowledge of the law (or your law vs. implementation of the law dichotomy) surely does not.

I'm not using Christianity to push my beliefs on you any more than you are using the basis for your beliefs to push those beliefs on me.

We each have our beliefs. Mine are based on one thing and yours are based on another. You claim mine are invalid because you don't like their origin. But I don't claim that yours are invalid because of their origin.

It was you and your ilk (first your ilk, then you) that interjected religion in to this discussion in the first place. I don't need to know the basis for your animosity and intolerance for Christians, but it would certainly help the discussion if you could set it aside and consider the opposing viewpoint as presented by an agnostic (or a Hindu or a Scientologist unless you're biased against them, too).

For better (you) or worse (me), Roe v. Wade set up the framework within which we must operate. For now. The would be far easier if you (the collective, pro-abortion "you") stopped the charade and admitted that there is no acceptable restriction on abortions and that you really just want unfettered access to abortions for all. Then the country could have an honest dialogue.

But you (the collective you) don't want an honest dialogue because then you have to admit that the preponderance of abortions in this country are simply birth control for convenience's sake (and not because of your favorite example of some disfavored demographic committing a crime against a favored female). Because if you drop the myths and you admit the truths, you lose. And with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, the abortion industry cannot afford to lose.

You'll be better off if you spend less time on the message board and more time organizing infanticide rides to border states. If as many people as you believe are as incensed about this as you are, it will give you something to do until 2015.

Shalom.

Hey, 5:19, pot meet kettle. Why don't you stop the charade and admit there there is no acceptable circumstance for you and your ilk under which abortions should be allowed and that you really just want an absolute prohibition on abortion. An honest dialogue requires both sides to be honest. The fact that you so easily see what you consider duplicity by others without seeing that you engage in the same thing tells me you don't want an honest dialogue. You just want to win. So you drop the myths and admit the truth.

And your implication that anyone opposed to your viewpoint is pro-infanticide is tasteless.

tasteless and baseless

5:19 pm you raised the issue of legislating morality and pompously pronounced a religious authority for your position.

You, SIR, know or should know, that this invasive procedure will become the required fetal heartbeat test either through regulation or court proceding once this becomes law.

AND, you know or should know this is an effort to end all abortions in the State and thus circumvent Roe v Wade. AND, you know or should know the end game is to, through legal language, change the law of the land to be that life begins at conception and to thus make common forms of birth control and in vitro illegal.

You , SIR, ought not assume the women in your life agree with you just because they don't bother to argue with someone who doesn't LISTEN to them or RESPECT them.

Your long term agenda is hardly a secret.

I, SIR, am not advocating abortion. I have never and would never comptemplate such and made that clear. Nor would any woman kin to me be forced into that position because of fear or a lack of support.

I am not forcing women to get an abortion OR an unnecessary medical procedure. You are using the force of law to make women pay for and be subjected to a medical procedure. Roe v Wade doesn't require women to get abortions, does it?


You, SIR, assume women get abortions without thought or consideration and are incompetent to make a choice consistent with THEIR moral convictions. You , SIR, assume that hearing a heartbeat, will change their minds as YOU think them lacking in imagination.

You, SIR, are only conveniently moral as you do not impose any hardship or burden on the father of those babies you want to protect. You are NOT requiring the father to be present, are you?

THAT is VERY telling. I dare you to introduce a bill requiring every father to hear his child's heartbeat.

Surely, if they do, the fathers will volunteer to assume full custody at birth, pay all the costs of the pregnancy and birth when the mother doesn't want the child. Because isn't that what you are pretending will happen for the mother than doesn't want to raise a child? That something magical will happen upon hearing the heartbeat?

If 5:19 and 3:21 are the same, then Shalom/Salaam/ Namaste back atcha.

For the purposes of this discussion, and so we are on mutually conversant grounds, Google some pictures of what a 5 week fetus looks like regarding size and relationship to the placenta. Now, I will tell you that detecting the cardiac activity of a fetus is damn tough with even a trans-vaginal ultrasound. Impossible with a trans-abdominal ultrasound. So, yes, trans-abdominal ultrasounds are equipped with doppler (no sic, I spelled it right - google that, too) technology. Now, just imagine trying to detect a miniscule jet of blood flow (fetal cardiac blood flow) behind a urinary bladder and on top of the placenta... Like trying to listen to a bug fart in a tornado...ain't gonna happen. If you really wish to detect the heartbeat (caused by the abrupt closure of the various valve leaflets in the heart synchronized by well-developed neural pathways) then you're gonna have to wait until they're formed, in about 12 more weeks.

Now, you wanna try and get all uppity about "honest dialogue" let's go. Make a sound argument for outlawing all abortion WITHOUT religious or moral overtones. Mine is this: when performed expertly, it is medically safe without causing long-term harm to the mother. Therefore, as a doctor, it remains an option for an expectant mother to entertain and we, as physicians, being bound by ethical standards surpassing yours, likely, to discuss them with our patients. We do not judge and we do not impose our sense of morality/ethics on patients. I may disagree with a patient's decision regarding their choice, but I am bound to respect their wishes and proceed accordingly.

What other medical procedures would like to outlaw? Come on, I had a long day in clinic today and I could use some easing of the load sometimes. What about, oh, let's see...vasectomies? What about liver transplants for inveterate alcoholics? What about withholding life prolonging therapy to people with HIV or cancer? Where is the slope not slippery here?

And, to be honest, I do not disdain Christianity. Nor do I lump and castigate other religions that have just as much right on this ball of dirt as yours. I do, however, distain the injection of a religious ethos (come on, tell me anti-abortionists do not use religion to bolster their arguments) into a legal system that attempts to treat all of its citizens equally.

I haven't bothered to read the vitriol posted above, but I will say this:

As a mother of three kids who has been pregnant five times (mc'd twice), I've experienced the vaginal sono with each pregnancy. It is hardly invasive or embarrassing nor does it hurt. It will, however, pick up a heartbeat at 6 weeks. And I think that's the problem the nay's have with the bill, considering most women who become accidentally pregnant don't find out until that 6-weekish period. How likely would YOU be to stop a beating heart, on purpose, just because you don't want to be pregnant at that time in your life?

We have rules and laws governing what can and cannot be done to paitents under a doctor's care for every single damn medical procedure there is. ANd if those laws/guidelines are not followed to the letter and something goes wrong, then the doctor gets hit for a malpractice suit for MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

But no, we can't get a woman to sign an informed consent form stating that they understand what is going to be done (something I had to sign when my underage daughter had a TONENAIL REMOVED) when an abortion is performed, we don't have to have an obstetrician or a gynecologist perform it,we don't have to run tests such as ultrasounds just to make sure that there isn't something else going on that might make an abortion MORE DANGEROUS TO THE MOTHER, we can't hold abortion clinics to the same health standards we do to hospitals--we can't do any of those things that constitute best medical practices for other medical procedures because if we did, LESS ABORTIONS WOULD BE PERFORMED.

I, unlike a hell of a lot of people doing the talking, have had a vaginal ultrasound. It's no more invasive than a damn pap smear. What are you pro-abortion people afraid of?

Either it's a "only" medical procedure, which means that it needs to be regulated just like every other medical procedure is, or it's a "constitutional right," which means it should be done at NO CHARGE and doctors willing to do the procedure should be FORBEIDDEN to take payment for it. YOU CAN"T HAVE IT BOTH DAMN WAYS.

Let's just be done with it and require everybody to lawyer up (mother, father, church leader(s) and physician) and meet for the vaginal ultrasound. We can do it on telemedicine (because we have all got to make sure they take the abortion pills with a witness) and thereby we will have the ability to record it digitally and store the images in case there is a future legal issue and, we as citizens can ensure our tax dollars only paid for the appropriate terminations of persons (can't leave out the ole personhood bs now can we?)

Gawd, is this not pure bs people?

The talibaptists are going nutz now that Feel Bryant and the merrybuncharepubsrncharge. Maybe can should call the mooslums and ask them how to successfully indoctrinate the masses of asses following these azzhulls.

I can't believe the bs being perpetrated upon the dumbazz citizens of Mississippi. Makes me want to puke. Really.

838. The term "medically necessary" probably wouldn't fit into your vocabulary. It's required terminology for billing. I really don't think saying that it is Mississippi political pandering would meet CMS or BCBS standard terminolgy to justify the charge(s). How exactly does one bill "constitutional right" as a no charge? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Can anyone explain to me the medical basis for the new "heartbeat" requirement? I understand the argument that "you won't get an abortion if you have to hear the heartbeat," but is there some medical basis for requiring this new procedure? Does this requirement have any impact on the quality or safety of patient care?

Darryl Hamilton - don't be so pissy - when you're wrong, admit it. The Doppler effect is named after Christian Doppler, hence the "D" is always capitalized; your spelling was incorrect, as someone pointed out. We don't talk about down syndrome, munchausen syndrome, a grey-cullen sign, turner syndrome, etc.

You can detect fetal heart sounds at 8 weeks gestation. You can't see the heart structures until 18 weeks, which is why fetal echocardiograms aren't offered until then. The LACK of a fetal heart sound is indicative of a fetal demise in utero (sometimes referred to as a "blighted ovum" early on).

Even the clowns who do the weather know that they're using Doppler radar. Take your own advice and Google Christian Doppler.

8:37 pm, that is the problem with anecdotal experience. Your experience with this procedure wasn't a problem for YOU. You are making the incorrect assumption that everyone's experience is the same as yours.

Women are not all the same size. Some women are not comfortable with objects being inserted . There is actually research on this as an explanation as to why women do not get PAP smears as often as they should, which is far more invasive.

You did not have that procedure early in your pregnancies so there had been more changes in your body.

You apparently are not allergic to latex or petroleum products. Good for you.

But, more importantly, you were not a virgin who had been raped either by a relativer or stranger.

Your sexual experience was not a traumatic event.

And , while some Pro-Life people, who I consider the extremists, argue that the women for whom terminating a pregnancy is a life saving procedure or they have been terribly injured as a victim of sexual assault, that we would be so callous as to make their lives even more difficult, is unacceptable to me as a Christian.

I've never gotten hives after a PAP smear.

I've never had break through bleeding after a PAP smear.

I've never had cramping after a PAP smear.

I'm remembering why I changed from a male ob-gyn to a female, though.

Women aren't all the same and that's the problem with medical legislation. It ASSUMES every woman is AVERAGE and that the bell curve doesn't exist except at the top of the bell. Or , as it's sometimes put, we aren't all " horses", some of us are " zebras" when it comes to medicine.

9:38 PM-

I am quite aware of what "medically necessary" means, and I think it's a delightful topic for this thread. BCBS has those codes a doctor has to use to make sure there really was a condition that really deserves to be paid. I think the line is "If there isn't a code for it, there's nothing wrong with you."

I'm certain there's a code to use to jusifiy an EKG and a chest x-ray before you do a heart catheterizataion, and another for doing the cath itself once you find blockage that can be treated with a stent. And BCBS will really look at you funny if you submit a bill for open-heart surgery that doesn't also include all thses other procedures, proven "medically necessary" by the outcome.

Why can't we have a similar protocol for a medically ncessary abortion? SHouoldn't go to an ob-gyn, who runs a pregnancy test, checks again with the TV ultrasound to make sure it's not a false positive (which are common), inspects the results to see that there aren't fibroid tumors that would complicate the surgery or God forbid, multiple fetuses that have to be removed in a more complex procedure,then let the patient be properly anesthsized and prepped and have it done in a professional manner, with signed consent papers to make sure the patient does understand everything beling done?

Yes, BCBS will bill a patrient for the entire procedure(s) if there is no demonstrated "medically necessary" reason to do it. ANd it will happen in about 97% of all abortions because only 3% are deemed "medically neccessary", i.e. a threat to the mental or physical health of the mother. THe rest are deemed "elective", i.e. for birth control.

March 16, 2012 5:19 PM

Do you foster unwanted children? I really want to know. Have you ever considered fostering children? If not, why? You will interject yourself in someone else's privacy, but are unwilling to address the societal pressures as a result of your warped thinking. I would appreciate an honest answer. And if you don't have foster children, when will you be supporting the unwanted children?

9:43,

8:37 here. So glad you were in the sono room with me. Oh wait, you weren't. If you had been, you would've known that I was between 5-11ish weeks with EACH pregnancy when I had the sono done. And, contrary to your implication, I am not comfortable with objects being inserted. But thanks for the backhanded compliment. Furthermore, a pap smear is painful so I can understand some women's aversion to it. But a vaginal sonogram? Not painful. And I have yet to find someone who has had a painful experience with one. Honestly, I've had pedicures that caused more discomfort than a sono.

But I'll grant you that there might be someone who has had some discomfort with it. And in some alternate universe it might trigger a rape flashback if a woman happened to be raped and impregnated by a sono wand.

Just admit that either you've never had a vaginal sono or you're fighting this measure (and I'm not calling it perfect or divine by any means) because you know that the number of abortions will drastically decrease if the woman is required to see and hear the heartbeat....which happens around 6 weeks. Once that heartbeat is displayed it's kind of hard to call an abortion a "medical procedure". It's stopping a beating heart, but I'd love to hear how you would term it.

Very educational .

I wish all vagina's were groomed
as well that model.

You have found someone who had a painful experience with THIS kind of sonogram. You just don't want to accept that.

I have had not one but 3 as I'm prone to ovarian cysts.

I've also probably got more than a few years of experience on you. You sound VERY, VERY young.

I doubt you've SEARCHED for those women who didn't have a good experience, but nevertheless, if only ONE woman didn't, it's ONE too many.

You are assuming ( again) incorrectly that I'm in favor of abortions.

Instead, I've volunteered for CARA ( see KF's post) and met some of the girls ( as young as 9) who have been raped and impregnated. I've lived long enough to have friends whose cancer was diagnosed along with their pregnancy. And, I've been educated enough to know that estrogen speeds the growth of cancer.

I have lived long enough to have friends who discovered, during their first visit for a pregnancy they wanted, that they had developed heart problems and were told it was doubtful they would survive the pregnancy and who had an awful decision to make. I've lived long enough to have friends who discovered their babies suffered from one a defect that would cause them to die soon after birth if not before.

I've had divorced and widowed friends( Vietnam), struggling to support their eiisting children who discovered, nearing menopause that they were pregnant. The boyfriend was gone. You are willing to judge their decision, I'm not. I decided to just pray for and support my friend. Another one of my friend's husband ran off with another woman just before she learned she was pregnant.

You , however, want a woman to assume the risks of pregnancy in a futile effort to deliver. You don't care about grown women with responsibilities or leaving their well children without their mother.

I've lived long enough to know that some women are on medications that they must have to function, but that will damage a fetus.

I've lived SO long that I remember when abortion was illegal. And, I KNOW that women who are determined to have an abortion will find a way.

And, I've lived long enough not to be so silly as to believe hearing a heartbeat is going to deter a woman from having an abortion.

And, I worked at a teaching hospital as a therapist where I saw that life isn't always as easy and simple as you seem to think it is.

Maybe you just aren't as blessed with many close women friends who trust you.

You must not like other women or else you would TRUST them to make their own decisions.

2:10, I think you may be missing the point. As someone politely stated earlier, the fact that you had the procedure and didn't have a problem is irrelevant. Assuming the procedure is as painless as you say, that fact is also irrelevant.

You are free to insert whatever object you want into the orifice of your choice. However, you have no damn business telling someone else what she must stick into her own body. Neither does Andy Gipson al-Zarqawi.

These are medical procedures. The decision whether to have a particular medical procedure belongs to the patient, upon informed consent with a medical professional. And by "medical professional," I mean someone who received their medical training at an accredited medical school, not the New Orleans Talibaptist Theological Seminary.

Anyone taking odds on how long it takes a federal judge to perform a first trimester abortion on this bill?

Well said , Curt.

But, Delta and 2:10 pm ( though they may be one and the same) don't understand, just like the women of Iran didn't and some of the women of Egypt don't, that some men use religion to gain power and control.

The women of Iran never dreamed that Ayatollah Khomeni would strip them of their rights. His writings and speeches from afar seemed perfectly reasonable and spiritual and he stood up to the Shah. "How could anyone who believed in the gentle, kind form of Islam they believed in, be other than a benevolent leader" is what they thought.

The women who supported Khomeni thought he would only deal with " sinful", " evil" women and they, being neither, would have no problems. They thought he would turn their society around from the sinful directions the Shah was taking. Indeed, some thought they'd be elevated into positions of leadership, more than Islam had ever seen, as they were praised as " smart" and " good mothers of Islam". They know better now. They know their religion, like all religions can be used for evil by evil men . And, they know that power is corrupting.

And, those who think Christianity is immuned to such men don't know much about Kosovo and certainly aren't students of history.

Yes, that was a long time ago. But, human nature doesn't change.

A good start would be to look at Ralph Reed's early years when he and Abramhoff became buddies and listen to his words then. He was honest about his agenda. Read Abramhoff's book. Reed's agenda was and is to destroy the two party system and he sought out Falwell to begin to use religion in that agenda. Don't believe me, read and see film for yourself. Learn about how Reed enriched himself using his " influence" with religious leaders and their dislike of gambling as a threat and not getting them riled up as a promise...if only he gets paid.

When religion is politicized, bad things can happen.

I agree with you Curt that this bill should be struck down based on the law. But, I never dreamed a corporation could be a " citizen" or that my land could be taken so someone else could profit from it. I didn't believe our Supreme Court would,in effect,give away the power of the judiciary branch.

Key has been politicizing the judiciary. And The Fourth Estate, as a protection of freedoms, has been politicized as well.

We won't lose our freedoms in an invasion. They will be eroded away and given away and sold and by the time we wake up, it will be too late.

We are in danger of becoming an oligarchy. It's just a question of which small group wins. I'm putting my bet on the one with the most money and hoping I'll die before it happens.

But, when those who live in a democratic republic don't learn what is key to making that system work, bad things happen. When they cannot put their religious beliefs in context with a functioning society or understand the history of religion,or that HUMANS not infallible gods are at the head of religious organizations, bad things happen.

To 3/17 @ 0832, my bad. Thought it was wrong usage of sic. Failed to capitalize, my bad. Dude got my ire up... Read about Christian Doppler in my college Modern Physics course, but thanks for clarifying my error.

Abortion has stopped a whole lotta democrats from reaching voting age.

@10:13
How the hell did I get in your comment? When I make a comment, I sign it, so there's no confusion about if I'm an 'anonymous' poster. Either your reading skill or comprehension skill is sorely lacking also, since I am not even remotely in agreement with 2:10. I'm actually one of those imaginary women she talks about who had actual PAIN from a T-V sonogram. More pain than I had from labor. And I've never had a painful PAP, so that comment also proves the danger of extrapolating one's own experiences onto other people.

If you're going to call me out on something, at east do it for something I actually said or agreed with.

Delta

p.s. Good post Curt.

Delta, I don't know why my apology didn't post. I agree with ALL your comments . I'm the other woman who had a bad experience.

I should have been more careful in my scrolling so as not to mislink your name with a 2:10 post as I scrolled back. I am so sorry. I made a mistake.

Your comments and Curt's are well taken with me. My reading comprehension is fine, it's my eyes and fingers that let me down if I'm not careful. I'm still adjusting to getting decrepit.