Say Anything Blog

Before Cruise turns in his Ultrasound machine, I suggest we strap it to his head to see what happened to his brain. I suspect we will find something resembling a dried turd rattling around.

Rob, nice way to pick apart the inconsistencies in the reasoning. And the article referenced by docdave surely casts a brighter light on the subject. 

Um, technically, doctors and nurses do not receive "years of training" just to run ultrasound machines.  As the daddy of four little girls, I can assure this forum that most anyone with moderate intelligence could learn to run one well in about a week.  So danger?  Hardly.

The place where I’d advocate caution among crisis pregancy centers is in the interpretation.  Doctors and nurses DO receive years of training to know what they’re looking at--things like training in physiology and anatomy and so on.  So there is a real issue where those who don’t know what they’re looking at could mislead mothers.

Will it shut down Focus’ plans?  Hardly.  Most crisis pregnancy centers have doctors affiliated, and one just needs to put that name on the bill of sale.

I find it interesting that Lieu said, "What we don’t want is someone who unintentionally damages the fetus."  Is it OK to intentionally damage one?

Hmmmm… That is not what they told me when I went in for an ultra sound. Interesting? A law? Prohibiting ownership of an ultra sound machine? The whole concept of ultra sound is that element of safety for both mother and child. Abortion advocates will stop at nothing to be able to terminate a pregnancy. Because, the mother would be able to see what they are doing. A law preventing ownership is going way too far.

I can understand years (weeks ?) of training to deteremine what a liver looks like, or where one might find one in a "mass of tissue", er, a fetus, er, a baby (/snide run-on), but I am with Robert Perry when I say that I could recognize a human head or a foot with nothing more than 16 seconds in front of a mirror. 

Thanks, Doc Dave, for stealing my thunder.  I, too, believe "they" (who ever they really are) fear the "Religious Right", sare I say, the Feverent Religious Right, getting their hands on one of those fantasitc anti-abortion machines.  What are the stats again on how many pro-abortees change their minds when shown that the "mass" has fingers and eyes?

Abortion issues aside, part of the reason why they want to ban private citizens from owning/using ultrasound machines is the potential damage to the mother. Ultrasound involves the use of heat as well as doppler-type recognition of sound. Overuse of ultrasound can have negative effects on a woman’s uterus and other reproductive organs. That’s why most women don’t get sonograms at every OB visit during their pregnancy. Ultrasound is used in physical therapy because it promotes blood flow to- and healing of the affected area. So if ultrasound is used too often, it can permanently jack-up a woman’s cervix or potentially cause or worsen endometriosis. Just a little insight.

Nikki...The ultrasounds a far superior today than when I had my babies. I could not tell quite honestly if it was a baby or a loch ness monster. That is interesting to know. They are so clear today it is unbelievable. Thanks!

A little bit of insight with regards to Nikki’s claims; I’ve had the same concerns, but after having four kids, I’ve yet to see any credible evidence that ultrasounds can do damage, nor any claims by doctors of the same. 

Jack up the cervix?  Ultrasound works at extremely low power levels, and one might as well state that listening to heavy metal at high levels will be far more effective at doing this, or perhaps riding in a vehicle with a poor suspension.

It does seem to me that passing this would be to the advantage of pro-choice groups considering the number of women who choose not to have an abortion after seeing their babies on an ultrasound.