What a vile, scumbag organization!

[Wind Song]

You don't have to concede; I know I'm right. At least read the data. Maybe you can use it to fine tune your future arguments for women's rights.

Thank you.

[Shadow]

Don't shoot the messenger. It was published in Contraception 67 (2003) 287–294
Seriously, read the research. Find contradictory evidence. But merely dismissing it because it refutes your belief is ignorant and naive.

Do you really think that people like WS... who demonize thoughts and opinions they don't like rather than debating them,will do anything besides close their eyes,plug their ears,and run around screaming "I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALA"?

[jimnyc]

Consider the source of your data.

You complain about the source, or "lifenews", when not only are they just the messengers of published medical data, the quote he put in HUGE letters stating it was standard procedure was from an official at planned parenthood in Washington, DC.

I know you and others might not like what Logroller has presented, but not only is it factual, it comes from general medical sources and the followup from PP. In other words, you're arguing with the very people who perform the abortions. Even they say it's a standard.

[Missileman]

Wait for it.....



http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/p...o-ultrasounds/

http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/u...soundstudy.pdf

I found actual data proving my claim WS. Do you have data disputing what I found?

If it were the medical standard, it would be performed 100% of the time. And of course, there are always contradictory sources available: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente...s/spib_RFU.pdf

BACKGROUND: Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to make ultrasound part of abortion service provision. Some laws and policies require that a woman seeking an abortion receive information on accessing ultrasound services, while others require that a woman undergo an ultrasound before an abortion. Since routine ultrasound is not considered medically necessary as a component of first-trimester abortion, the requirements appear to be a veiled attempt to personify the fetus and dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion. Moreover, an ultrasound can add significantly to the cost of the procedure.
HIGHLIGHTS:
 11 states require verbal counseling or written materials to include information on accessing ultrasound services.
 20 states regulate the provision of ultrasound by abortion providers.
 7 states mandate that an abortion provider perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion, and require the provider to offer the woman the opportunity to view the image.
 9 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image if her provider performs the procedure as part of the preparation for an abortion.
 5 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image.

[Missileman]

You complain about the source, or "lifenews", when not only are they just the messengers of published medical data, the quote he put in HUGE letters stating it was standard procedure was from an official at planned parenthood in Washington, DC.

I know you and others might not like what Logroller has presented, but not only is it factual, it comes from general medical sources and the followup from PP. In other words, you're arguing with the very people who perform the abortions. Even they say it's a standard.

Actually, not so much. See post #349

[jimnyc]

Actually, not so much.

I have no idea specifically what you're referring to. Are you stating that PP "didn't" state it was standard procedure?

[Missileman]

I have no idea specifically what you're referring to. Are you stating that PP "didn't" state it was standard procedure?

Sorry, should have added a pointer...it's there now.

[jimnyc]

If it were the medical standard, it would be performed 100% of the time. And of course, there are always contradictory sources available: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente...s/spib_RFU.pdf

Actually, not so much. See post #349

Sorry, should have added a pointer...it's there now.

Standard does not mean 100% of the time. I would lean more towards the "majority" of the time. I would say standard meas more like "normal" procedure, but as with ANY medical procedure, sometimes standards can't be or simply aren't followed. There are "industry standards" for almost every known medical procedure, but I'm willing to bet that these standards are not followed every single day somewhere in the US.

But I'll admit to your point, that it's certainly not always and everywhere. But that doesn't change the fact that it's considered standard in the majority of states by the majority of doctors - and that includes PP themselves.

[Missileman]

But that doesn't change the fact that it's considered standard in the majority of states by the majority of doctors - and that includes PP themselves.

I think you totally ignored the data I posted. Ultrasound is only mandatory in 7 states. That's not even half, let alone a majority. As for PP standards, I'll bet ultrasounds are procedures for which government funding CAN be used and they're being performed even though not medically necessary.

[jimnyc]

I think you totally ignored the data I posted. Ultrasound is only mandatory in 7 states. That's not even half, let alone a majority. As for PP standards, I'll bet ultrasounds are procedures for which government funding CAN be used and they're being performed even though not medically necessary.

Didn't ignore it at all. Unless you're stating that they won't ever perform these procedures unless it's mandatory. I'm betting, along with Log's data, that it's still fairly standard in states where it is not mandatory. Are you saying that PP policy is "standard" to perform these procedures in 7 states but that they don't perform them in cases of 22 weeks or under in the other 43 states at all?

[jimnyc]

I still fail to see how defense spending has anything at all to do with PP or the poor. How about we discuss that one nugget first? Or will you find yet another reason to whine instead of simply answering?

Fine. We've beat this thing sufficiently enough to kill it. If you're interested in my position, read the thread one more time, and try to understand what I mean this time. Sometimes the threads move rather quickly.

Smartass is SOP on boards. If that's your thing, that's your thing.

It's one very simple question. I've read all your posts in this thread several times, and still see no relation between defense spending with either PP or the poor. You say sufficient where I say you haven't even started. You gave one post to backup your comments and now won't even expand on it when questioned. I think it's obvious why, as defense spending has zilch to do with PP or the poor. But if it makes you feel better to blame it on me, that's cool.

Howard, new day and it's sunny outside. Wanna try and start over beginning with this question? I am aware of Romney's stance on PP, but I'm of the belief that this hardly makes him out of touch with the poor. With that said, can you explain to me how the defense spending has any relevance? Then after I understand that, we can move on to other things that you feel explain how he is out of touch with the poor, or however one would label it with him and his understanding of poor people.

[logroller]

If it were the medical standard, it would be performed 100% of the time. And of course, there are always contradictory sources available: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente...s/spib_RFU.pdf

Whatever mm. 92% of the time said always, 1% said never. Obviously you're not in the habit of evaluating data; but that's strong statistical support. Your source talks about what state policy states; not empirical data from actual medical practices. Seriously, read the data, who produced it and why. It's all there, black and white; ultrasounds are regularly performed prior to abortions. It's planned parenthood's policy. Should I post the data once more. Actual hard data on the exact thing I'm talking about: actual abortions being preceded and after ceded by ultrasounds.

[Abbey Marie]

Romney is less out of touch with the poor, than Howard is out of touch with the beating heart of a baby in utero.

[logroller]

Romney is less out of touch with the poor, than Howard is out of touch with the beating heart of a baby in utero.

Abbey, are you really a man who cares nothing about women's health?

[Missileman]

Whatever mm. 92% of the time said always, 1% said never. Obviously you're not in the habit of evaluating data; but that's strong statistical support. Your source talks about what state policy states; not empirical data from actual medical practices. Seriously, read the data, who produced it and why. It's all there, black and white; ultrasounds are regularly performed prior to abortions. It's planned parenthood's policy. Should I post the data once more. Actual hard data on the exact thing I'm talking about: actual abortions being preceded and after ceded by ultrasounds.

You can spin the study any way you like, but your own fact that one site never does one is proof it's not a medical necessity OR PP policy. You can post the data over and over again, it won't change that fact.