crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal

[Tanaqui]

All I was trying to say is I'd like to see the figures of Planned Parenthood clinics that offer abortion and how the pie chart looks with regards to abortion if you remove the clinics that do not offer abortion from the chart. You'd also be removing the other services from the other clinics as well. Just wondering how skewed the pie chart would be in the opposite direction.

 

The numbers would be different. Are you trying to make a point that PP is lying or being disingenuous, or are you just curious for your own edification?

[Murphy101]

I'm going to be 43 when my baby is born. Not one appt goes by where I am not strongly encouraged to have genetic counseling and extensive testing "before it's too late to do anything" - aka before the legal abortion cut off week arrives. Additional blood work and amino and and and.

 

And no appt. ever ends without being reminded I'm no spring chicken anymore. I'm 42, not 82. Yes I have some grey hair and I am well aware I'm not 21 anymore since I daily see my son who is, but obviously my lady bits are young enough to still be functioning so I can't be that old. Enough already. Quit trying to scare about things I'm not even presenting for.

 

I have THREE times left ultrasound appts because they automaticly scheduled me for genetic counseling before the ultrasound. If you skip the genetic counseling (which by the way is damned expensive), you have to reschedule. I finally just said screw it and decided I didn't need a level 2 ultrasound at 9-12 weeks anyways.

 

I have called in advance to make my own appt for my 20 week ultrasound so that I know they don't try to railroad me into genetic screening again.

 

My ob is not happy, but we have come to a truce as long as I get that level 2 ultrasound at 20 weeks, sans genetic counseling and follow up with her that same week "just in case" because she wouldn't want to risk me not getting "all my options". I've said I don't know how many times that there is absolutely nothing possible on that ultrasound or the tests that's going to change my decision to have this baby. But she still insists "we need to know". I have asked repeatedly to be told what benefit to my child there is to know. Are they testing for anything that would give me a better chance of healthier baby if I find out? Wellll. No, she grudgingly admits, but we still we need to know so we can decide how to proceed.

 

And keep in mind I have a cursory ultrasound at every single appt. So it's not like we aren't keeping track of things.

 

When I talk to my friends who have had later in life babies, they all complain about the same experience I'm having.

[Tanaqui]

Well, it's not like having amnio means you've consented to abort if it turns up positive. It seems to me that even if you don't intend to abort, no matter what, it can only be helpful to have a few extra months to prepare for having a kid with Downs.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Well, it's not like having amnio means you've consented to abort if it turns up positive. It seems to me that even if you don't intend to abort, no matter what, it can only be helpful to have a few extra months to prepare for having a kid with Downs.

I see it as info about the fetus so I know what to expect when they are born. This gives me time to prep if needed for any special needs.

 

 

I do not think a doctor should keep trying to push the test though.

[heartlikealion]

The numbers would be different. Are you trying to make a point that PP is lying or being disingenuous, or are you just curious for your own edification?

 

I don't doubt the numbers would be different. I'm asking to what extreme. Basically make a point that PP figures are misleading as stated earlier and/or can be used for/against them.

[heartlikealion]

Well, it's not like having amnio means you've consented to abort if it turns up positive. It seems to me that even if you don't intend to abort, no matter what, it can only be helpful to have a few extra months to prepare for having a kid with Downs.

 

A co-worker told me a story of someone she knew that had testing done and it was wrong. So they fretted the rest of their pregnancy over something that never happened. I don't know how often that happens. I didn't do testing.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

The thing about amnio, though, is that at least when it was offered (pressed on) to me, there was about a 1% chance of it causing miscarriage.  It's not as safe as, say, a blood test.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't doubt the numbers would be different. I'm asking to what extreme. Basically make a point that PP figures are misleading as stated earlier and/or can be used for/against them.

 

The numbers aren't misleading.  PP as a whole provides a wide range of services.  Obviously any location offering abortions will have a different breakdown than those that don't.  Unless you think PP is forcing abortions upon those who show up at their clinics, I can't imagine how this matters.

[MeghansMom]

Some of you sound unhinged in this thread ( not a response to the post above, btw!)

 

I respect your right to be anti-choice for yourself. Being pro-choice means I also support your right to have the family that is right for you - for example, I'm not going to be the one criticizing you when you have your 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th child. I'll be congratulating you, because I truly believe in your choice for you.

 

But if you want to argue your case and have a hope of anyone from 'the other side' listening and hearing your concerns, wild accusations and lack of facts isn't the way to go about it. 

 

 

Please stop using the term anti-choice, it is just as inflammatory as saying pro-abortion. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Please stop using the term anti-choice, it is just as inflammatory as saying pro-abortion. 

 

Pro-abortion isn't accurate.  You can say I am pro-abortion rights and I won't quibble.

Anti-choice is accurate.

[MeghansMom]

Pro-abortion isn't accurate.  You can say I am pro-abortion rights and I won't quibble.

Anti-choice is accurate.

 

 

Anti-choice is NOT accurate. There are "pro-choice" that are anything but. They want the only choice to be abortion and that is NOT a choice if that is your only one. There are those that want to use any excuse for an abortion such as a child that is physically and or mentally handicapped or that wish to use it as birth control. The baby does NOT get a choice and the man does NOT get a choice. But yet if the woman chooses to have the baby, the man has to be financially responsible for it and he "should have thought of that" before he had sex. 

 

I am pro-life and I also marched in Pensacola for the pro-choice movement when Dr Gunn was shot and killed. I hate abortion but I understand the need for it in this imperfect world. I believe that making abortions illegal would cause more death and I am against that. I would never vote to make abortion illegal. However I do believe there needs to be more education not only with birth control but with teaching young people the responsibilities of an unwanted pregnancy before  they need to make such a serious decision and to have better self esteem, etc. No, I do not believe this will eradicate abortion, but it will help lesson the numbers. Hopefully in time we will find more successful ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies scientifically, legally (stricter laws/consequences for rape) too. I am also anti-death penalty with the exception of cases like Ted Bundy (he kept escaping and killing). I think there are better ways and I am sure most people are in the middle so to speak about these issues. I don't believe a majority are either claiming pro-life and killing abortion clinic workers  or are pro-choice to the point of wanting abortion to be the only choice.

 

Hopefully I made some sense... :blushing:

 

 

Edited May 15, 2016 by MeghansMom

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Anti-choice is NOT accurate. There are "pro-choice" that are anything but. They want the only choice to be abortion and that is NOT a choice if that is your only one. There are those that want to use any excuse for an abortion such as a child that is physically and or mentally handicapped or that wish to use it as birth control. The baby does NOT get a choice and the man does NOT get a choice. But yet if the woman chooses to have the baby, the man has to be financially responsible for it and he "should have thought of that" before he had sex. 

 

I am pro-life and I also marched in Pensacola for the pro-choice movement when Dr Gunn was shot and killed. I hate abortion but I understand the need for it in this imperfect world. I believe that making abortions illegal would cause more death and I am against that. I would never vote to make abortion illegal. However I do believe there needs to be more education not only with birth control but with teaching young people the responsibilities of an unwanted pregnancy before  they need to make such a serious decision and to have better self esteem, etc. No, I do not believe this will eradicate abortion, but it will help lesson the numbers. Hopefully in time we will find more successful ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies scientifically, legally (stricter laws/consequences for rape) too. I am also anti-death penalty with the exception of cases like Ted Bundy (he kept escaping and killing). I think there are better ways and I am sure most people are in the middle so to speak about these issues. I don't believe a majority are either claiming pro-life and killing abortion clinic workers  or are pro-choice to the point of wanting abortion to be the only choice.

 

Hopefully I made some sense... :blushing:

 

Exactly what groups are advocating forced abortions?  You are really honestly trying to argue there are those who don't want to allow any woman to carry a pregnancy to term?  If these people do exist, I would agree that they shouldn't be labeled pro-choice as they clearly are not.

 

As you described yourself, the pro-choice label applies because in the end, you accept abortion needs to be legal.  You may not like the choice a woman makes, but you seem to accept in the end it is hers.  If you advocated making abortion illegal, as many here do, then you would be anti-choice.

[Ausmumof3]

But surely you don't think the mother's mental health shouldn't be taken into account ? You know that suicidal ideation falls under that banner ? Do you know that those 50 women were 'faking' ? How do you know their mental health issues weren't as the result of rape, or incest, or pre-existing conditions that worsened with pregnancy ? You don't. And unless you know, you can't judge the severity of those mental health issues.

 

I would wager a guess that the mental health bar is lower in the first trimester and significantly higher the further on in pregnancy a woman is.

 

Put it this way, if a woman is so distressed by her pregnancy that she will kill herself, the foetus will die anyway. This way, one life is saved.

I didn't say it shouldn't be taken into account.

 

I was responding to a poster that said that most late term abortions were of unviable fetuses which doesn't appear to be inaccurate. I didn't make any judgment or state any opinion in relation to the fact and was only correcting a statement that appeared to be contradicted by statistics.

 

I realise that some people may make that judgment but personally I'm more interested in knowing and understanding the issues than making any kind of judgment.

[heartlikealion]

The numbers aren't misleading.  PP as a whole provides a wide range of services.  Obviously any location offering abortions will have a different breakdown than those that don't.  Unless you think PP is forcing abortions upon those who show up at their clinics, I can't imagine how this matters.

 

We discussed how the numbers could be seen as misleading earlier in the thread. There was an article or two linked explaining how services were tallied. I found a video that addresses my question. No need to point as a bias. I realize it's possible it might not be 100% accurate but it sounds like the answer to my question is "a very high percentage."

 

Nevermind, I don't think this video is really fair either because they narrow it down to just pregnant clients.

Edited May 15, 2016 by heartlikealion

[Tanaqui]

Yes, because people have to travel to a small number of clinics to have their abortions. I don't really understand what you consider misleading about this reality, heartlikealion.

[heartlikealion]

It's not a coincidence that when I google 'PP quotas' every link on the first two pages is from a pro-life or right wing, anti PP website. I'm having trouble even finding a neutral source.

 

So far as I can see, clinics budget to perform a certain number of terminations per financial year. That's not a quota, that's planning ahead for the services you anticipate you will need to offer based on previous years. Probably so that you are not in a position of having to turn women away.

 

We will never know unless we grill employees about their supposed quotas. Who knows how they operate from year to tear, either. Things could change. Yeah, I assume it is very hard to find neutral sources.

 

[Tanaqui]

Unless you think the media is involved in the conspiracy with PP, in which case it gets impossibly large and statistically impossible to keep secret.

 

Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. (Sorry, I thought  Ben would like to get his word in.)

 

[heartlikealion]

I suppose if you think there is some kind of evil PP agenda, quotas seem reasonable. I don't think PP has an evil agenda to make money out of aborted foetuses, so to me it doesn't seem reasonable at all.

 

The thing about conspiracy theories is that you can look at them statistically and see that the larger the conspiracy, the harder it is to keep it quiet.

 

PP setting quotas for abortions for nefarious reasons is a big enough story in the public interest that I'd expect reputable news sources to pick it up, with evidence, at some point if it was true.

 

Unless you think the media is involved in the conspiracy with PP, in which case it gets impossibly large and statistically impossible to keep secret. 

 

Well I've heard some bat sh!t crazy stuff about PETA and most people think they are supposed to be humane toward animals. I no longer trust that. I definitely don't trust the media to report everything. I don't know what to make of the quota thing. Don't mind my tin foil hat. lol

 

[Tsuga]

But that is far from the norm and I can say that with confidence.

 

Did you do a study on a statistically significant sample of crisis centers?

 

I'm glad that's not happening where you worked, but can you really say this isn't the norm?

[SKL]

On the topic of pushing amnio.  My kid sister was born in 1979 and they tried to force my mom to have that done.  In those days she read that 3% of the tests resulted in miscarriage.  She said no thanks, repeatedly.  Finally they stopped pushing when she said "I wouldn't have an abortion regardless."  So this is not a new problem.

 

I don't understand why doctors get away with this.  I guess women don't walk away because finding a new OBGYN at that stage isn't ideal, but I would think some of them would make complaints or something.  How obnoxious.

[Valley Girl]

The thing about amnio, though, is that at least when it was offered (pressed on) to me, there was about a 1% chance of it causing miscarriage.  It's not as safe as, say, a blood test.

 

That was our issue with it as well. We'd waited so long for that pregnancy. We didn't want to do ANYTHING that might put it at risk.

[poppy]

Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. (Sorry, I thought Ben would like to get his word in.)

Or the very creepy opening credits of Pretty Little Liars.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Please stop using the term anti-choice, it is just as inflammatory as saying pro-abortion.

I am pro-choice, but not pro abortion. It's not a choice I could make. I will not take that choice away from others. I will support a friend in that choice if that's what they choose though, and have. I nearly flew halfway around the world to hold her hand for it because my friend was alone. thankfully she found someone nearer (but still several countries away) to be there.

 

Pro-life is a misnomer, unless there is solid support after birth as well.

[maize]

Pro-life is a misnomer, unless there is solid support after birth as well.

 

Yes to this. I consider myself pro-life, but it is a culture of support for children and families, a culture in which every person is valued without reference to their status as an economic producer, that I will work towards.

[Tanaqui]

Pro-life is a misnomer, unless there is solid support after birth as well.

 

Indeed, I would like to reduce the number of abortions myself, because, like SKL, I don't want people to feel they *must* have an abortion because they simply can't afford a child (or, more often, another child). That means good access to low-cost or free (on a sliding scale), reliable contraceptives. That means good sex ed in schools. That means free healthcare for pregnant women and people under the age of 18, and good, low-cost daycare and preschool, and generous paid parental leave laws. That means greater access to SNAP or WIC for families with children, and financial help for purchasing diapers, car seats, and other necessary accoutrements. It means free university or college, and everything moreso for people born with disabilities. What it means is spending money, and yeah, that means taxes.

 

Keep people who don't want children from getting pregnant. Make it so that people who do want children can afford to raise them. That's the way to lower the abortion rate. Harsh restrictions aren't.

 

Whew, sorry, somebody left a soapbox here and somehow I felt compelled to step on it!

[Wheres Toto]

If she hadn't come early, I would have been 39 when she was born.  I turned down the amnio for her, as I had for my son (I was 36 for him).  Nobody pressured or pushed, and I had no genetic counseling.  I did have a stage 2 ultrasound with both but that was it.

[MeghansMom]

Exactly what groups are advocating forced abortions?  You are really honestly trying to argue there are those who don't want to allow any woman to carry a pregnancy to term?  If these people do exist, I would agree that they shouldn't be labeled pro-choice as they clearly are not.

 

As you described yourself, the pro-choice label applies because in the end, you accept abortion needs to be legal.  You may not like the choice a woman makes, but you seem to accept in the end it is hers.  If you advocated making abortion illegal, as many here do, then you would be anti-choice.

 

The abortion debate has come up on various forums and there have been posters that argued that abortion was called for in every instance whether it was a young person that was pregnant or the baby could be born with issues, etc.

 

And yes I am arguing it. It is the truth. Why would I lie?

 

I am PRO-LIFE. If we make abortion illegal there will be MORE DEATHS. I think there are better ways to combat abortion other than making it illegal.

 

Pro-lifers are not anti-choice any more than pro-choice are pro-abortion.

 

I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

[TranquilMind]

I'm going to be 43 when my baby is born. Not one appt goes by where I am not strongly encouraged to have genetic counseling and extensive testing "before it's too late to do anything" - aka before the legal abortion cut off week arrives. Additional blood work and amino and and and.

 

And no appt. ever ends without being reminded I'm no spring chicken anymore. I'm 42, not 82. Yes I have some grey hair and I am well aware I'm not 21 anymore since I daily see my son who is, but obviously my lady bits are young enough to still be functioning so I can't be that old. Enough already. Quit trying to scare about things I'm not even presenting for.

 

I have THREE times left ultrasound appts because they automaticly scheduled me for genetic counseling before the ultrasound. If you skip the genetic counseling (which by the way is damned expensive), you have to reschedule. I finally just said screw it and decided I didn't need a level 2 ultrasound at 9-12 weeks anyways.

 

I have called in advance to make my own appt for my 20 week ultrasound so that I know they don't try to railroad me into genetic screening again.

 

My ob is not happy, but we have come to a truce as long as I get that level 2 ultrasound at 20 weeks, sans genetic counseling and follow up with her that same week "just in case" because she wouldn't want to risk me not getting "all my options". I've said I don't know how many times that there is absolutely nothing possible on that ultrasound or the tests that's going to change my decision to have this baby. But she still insists "we need to know". I have asked repeatedly to be told what benefit to my child there is to know. Are they testing for anything that would give me a better chance of healthier baby if I find out? Wellll. No, she grudgingly admits, but we still we need to know so we can decide how to proceed.

 

And keep in mind I have a cursory ultrasound at every single appt. So it's not like we aren't keeping track of things.

 

When I talk to my friends who have had later in life babies, they all complain about the same experience I'm having.

 

Every time I read this kind of stuff I am so glad that I had a midwife and home births.  None of this pressure (and I was that age at the last birth).  I would be so annoyed to have to fight the doctor as well. 

 

[TranquilMind]

On the topic of pushing amnio.  My kid sister was born in 1979 and they tried to force my mom to have that done.  In those days she read that 3% of the tests resulted in miscarriage.  She said no thanks, repeatedly.  Finally they stopped pushing when she said "I wouldn't have an abortion regardless."  So this is not a new problem.

 

I don't understand why doctors get away with this.  I guess women don't walk away because finding a new OBGYN at that stage isn't ideal, but I would think some of them would make complaints or something.  How obnoxious.

 

They get away with it because they pull the stupid, "Well, don't worry your pretty little head about what you read on the internet!  My degree is not from Google university, so you need to listen to me." or some such condescending thing, despite the fact that everything THEY read is on the internet too. 

 

Without exception so far, each time my gut told me the doctor was wrong, I was right about that. 

 

[poppy]

They get away with it because they pull the stupid, "Well, don't worry your pretty little head about what you read on the internet! My degree is not from Google university, so you need to listen to me." or some such condescending thing, despite the fact that everything THEY read is on the internet too.

 

Without exception so far, each time my gut told me the doctor was wrong, I was right about that.

 

I do not believe that doctors get all their medical information by Googling.

 

I also do not understand the idea that genetic testing is an offensive thing to suggest. The purpose of genetic testing isn't to determine whether or not to have an abortion. Many , many people who do not have any interest in abortion do not refuse tests. Obviously it is FINE to refuse them. But I would assume the woman saying 'I wouldn't have an abortion anyway' led to the test no longer being offered offered because she was forceful in refusing, not because it is some automatic abortion on-off switch.

Edited May 21, 2016 by poppy

[Murphy101]

I do not believe that doctors get all their medical information by Googling.

 

I also do not understand the idea that genetic testing is an offensive thing to suggest. The purpose of genetic testing isn't to determine whether or not to have an abortion. Many , many people who do not have any interest in abortion do not refuse tests. Obviously it is FINE to refuse them. But I would assume the woman saying 'I wouldn't have an abortion anyway' led to the test no longer being offered offered because she was forceful in refusing, not because it is some automatic abortion on-off switch.

No woman should have to forcefully refuse. Just saying no once should be enough.

 

And the only reason to push it so strongly is to get that abortion while it's legal. To make her sit through an hour of doom and gloom genetic counseling before she even gets ultrasound so she doesn't do anything foolish like get too emotionally attached to what is shown on the screen. The huge numbers of women who get positive results and also get abortions is directly proportional to how hard they encourage women to not keep what are viewed as defective and undesirable babies unworthy of being allowed to continue developing or living.

 

There's really nothing to argue about that. The numbers are rather stark. Finding out about the possiblity of a problem (and that's all most of the test can speculate, most are not definitive or let you know how bad it might be on the spectrum) - the suggesting they might want to find out is not offensive.

 

The pushing hard and often is offensive.

The pushing hard to do it before an abortion option deadline is an obvious offense to someone who states repeatedly they either don't want to know and or are not interested in abortion.

 

It's offensive for the same reason that if I say birth control is against my religious beliefs, my husband doesn't force me to have these kids, and I have adverse health reasons for not wanting it - it would be offensive to keep pushing it and makes me start to think they care more about making me do what they would do.

 

To say it's "just" that they make it known to me that I can have birth control if I want it is what is insulting is completely missing what's going on. I'm not insulted by them just informing me of my options, even ones I adamantly think are sinful and wrong.

[poppy]

No woman should have to forcefully refuse. Just saying no once should be enough.

 

And the only reason to push it so strongly is to get that abortion while it's legal. To make her sit through an hour of doom and gloom genetic counseling before she even gets ultrasound so she doesn't do anything foolish like get too emotionally attached to what is shown on the screen. The huge numbers of women who get positive results and also get abortions is directly proportional to how hard they encourage women to not keep what are viewed as defective and undesirable babies unworthy of being allowed to continue developing or living.

 

There's really nothing to argue about that. The numbers are rather stark. Finding out about the possiblity of a problem (and that's all most of the test can speculate, most are not definitive or let you know how bad it might be on the spectrum) - the suggesting they might want to find out is not offensive.

 

The pushing hard and often is offensive.

The pushing hard to do it before an abortion option deadline is an obvious offense to someone who states repeatedly they either don't want to know and or are not interested in abortion.

 

It's offensive for the same reason that if I say birth control is against my religious beliefs, my husband doesn't force me to have these kids, and I have adverse health reasons for not wanting it - it would be offensive to keep pushing it and makes me start to think they care more about making me do what they would do.

 

To say it's "just" that they make it known to me that I can have birth control if I want it is what is insulting is completely missing what's going on. I'm not insulted by them just informing me of my options, even ones I adamantly think are sinful and wrong.

 

You think they would stop offering these amnios and genetic tests if abortion were illegal?

Weren't amnios fairly common before abortion was legalized?

People want to know for reasons other than abortion.

 

I agree that if a woman refuses a test, that should be the end of the conversation. Is there anyone on this thread who would disagree? I doubt it.

 

But if you refuse a test during a visit and the test is offered at a later visit, that's not necessarily a terrible offense or pushing abortion. It's probably just a checklist of things to offer at various pointsdiring a pregnancy timeline . Say no again and that should be it.

Edited May 22, 2016 by poppy

[Dmmetler]

FWIW, I did genetic counseling during my pregnancy with my son. My husband's younger brother was born with a chromosomal deletion, causing profound disabilities. After reviewing the records and my prior tests, the genetic counselor recommended against amniocentesis, because the deletion wasn't one likely to be genetically carried, and I had a history of early miscarriage. After I had HELLP syndrome in that pregnancy, we did a great deal of genetic and other testing on DH and I-and when I got pregnant again, three years later, again, they recommended against amniocentesis. In some cases, although not in mine with the tests available at the time, such genetic counseling and testing can make a difference between being able to make a pregnancy viable and repeated losses.

 

From what I've seen, high risk pregnancy specialists and perinatologists, and in my experience, by the time you get to genetic counseling and more involved testing, that's where you are, understand good and well that their patients are desperate to have a child. And they don't suggest things with risk of miscarriage, like amnio or CVS, unless there is some sign that it may be actually useful.

 

I will say that my insurance company included amnio in the standard package they'd pay for without going through extra approval, but that's not "forced", and given the number of hoops we had to jump to get other tests improved, I imagine that is seen as a service to their customers rather than as a way to force women to abort their pregnancies.

[Murphy101]

You think they would stop offering these amnios and genetic tests if abortion were illegal?

Weren't amnios fairly common before abortion was legalized?

People want to know for reasons other than abortion.

No. Abortion has been legal since 1973.

Amino came later than that. And wasn't very accurate either. (Still questionable for some dx.) It's not supposed to be standard bc of the raise in miscarriage risk. Usually it's the next step after something else prompts concern, such as an off ultrasound or bloodwork indicators.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Murphy101

[Caroline]

No. Abortion has been legal since 1973.

Amino came later than that. And wasn't very accurate either. (Still questionable for some dx.) It's not supposed to be standard bc of the raise in miscarriage risk. Usually it's the next step after something else prompts concern, such as an off ultrasound or bloodwork indicators.

Amniocentesis was first performed in the US in 1956. Before the 1970's, they were done blindly without an ultrasound. After that they were done with an ultrasound to make them safer. But amnios were done before abortions were legal.

[poppy]

No. Abortion has been legal since 1973.

Amino came later than that. And wasn't very accurate either. (Still questionable for some dx.) It's not supposed to be standard bc of the raise in miscarriage risk. Usually it's the next step after something else prompts concern, such as an off ultrasound or bloodwork indicators.

Ok.

I know my mom had one when pregnant with me and she said it was 'the normal thing to do' . But that was 1974, so, basically concurrent with Roe v Wade. She told me the mindset was its all part of scientific progress, knowledge is power , etc. (prob the same way formula was considered better at that time too.....).

 

I dunno. My mental association with those test isn't 'red flag for them wanting to send you to an abortion factory!' I honestly didn't know people felt that way til this thread.

[J-rap]

Actually the number of people I know who call themselves "pro-life" but are also pro-war, pro death penalty and pro economic policies that make children one of the most impoverished demographics is not unsubstantial. I 

 

This is so true, and has always baffled me.

[SKL]

You think they would stop offering these amnios and genetic tests if abortion were illegal?

Weren't amnios fairly common before abortion was legalized?

People want to know for reasons other than abortion.

 

I agree that if a woman refuses a test, that should be the end of the conversation. Is there anyone on this thread who would disagree? I doubt it.

 

But if you refuse a test during a visit and the test is offered at a later visit, that's not necessarily a terrible offense or pushing abortion. It's probably just a checklist of things to offer at various pointsdiring a pregnancy timeline . Say no again and that should be it.

 

No, I don't think amnios were as common before abortion was legalized.  It was a new idea to my mom when they tried to push it on her - and she was a person who read a lot and knew enough to correct doctors and protect her kids from more than one birth injury.  She took the time to read up on it and learned that (at that time) the test itself killed 3% of the fetuses.  But even after she brought that up, they tried to tell her she *had* to have the test done because of her age.  Luckily she is not one to be pushed around.

 

It's a nice thought that docs are respectful of women's wishes and don't push, but people are telling you it does happen.  Either they are lying or there are doctors who aren't respectful of women's wishes.  And yes, it is related to the cutoff for legal abortion.

[TranquilMind]

No woman should have to forcefully refuse. Just saying no once should be enough.

 

And the only reason to push it so strongly is to get that abortion while it's legal. To make her sit through an hour of doom and gloom genetic counseling before she even gets ultrasound so she doesn't do anything foolish like get too emotionally attached to what is shown on the screen. The huge numbers of women who get positive results and also get abortions is directly proportional to how hard they encourage women to not keep what are viewed as defective and undesirable babies unworthy of being allowed to continue developing or living.

 

There's really nothing to argue about that. The numbers are rather stark. Finding out about the possiblity of a problem (and that's all most of the test can speculate, most are not definitive or let you know how bad it might be on the spectrum) - the suggesting they might want to find out is not offensive.

 

The pushing hard and often is offensive.

The pushing hard to do it before an abortion option deadline is an obvious offense to someone who states repeatedly they either don't want to know and or are not interested in abortion.

 

It's offensive for the same reason that if I say birth control is against my religious beliefs, my husband doesn't force me to have these kids, and I have adverse health reasons for not wanting it - it would be offensive to keep pushing it and makes me start to think they care more about making me do what they would do.

 

To say it's "just" that they make it known to me that I can have birth control if I want it is what is insulting is completely missing what's going on. I'm not insulted by them just informing me of my options, even ones I adamantly think are sinful and wrong.

 

I would so NOT tolerate the bolded.  I've never been a typical patient, nor ever been to that type of doctor anyway, but geez.  I would stop that in a heartbeat and they would probably kick me out for my noncompliance.  ;)

 

[TranquilMind]

But surely you don't think the mother's mental health shouldn't be taken into account ? You know that suicidal ideation falls under that banner ? Do you know that those 50 women were 'faking' ? How do you know their mental health issues weren't as the result of rape, or incest, or pre-existing conditions that worsened with pregnancy ? You don't. And unless you know, you can't judge the severity of those mental health issues.

 

I would wager a guess that the mental health bar is lower in the first trimester and significantly higher the further on in pregnancy a woman is. 

 

Put it this way, if a woman is so distressed by her pregnancy that she will kill herself, the foetus will die anyway. This way, one life is saved.

 

But isn't that a better risk for the baby ?  Sure, mom could kill herself anyway...but likely not.  I mean it isn't as if we have an enormous wave of expectant mothers offing themselves all over the place. 

 

Or mom could be really glad she has that child later, because he gives her something to live for, as so many have found.  Why eliminate that possibility, which is much more likely than the one that mom could kill herself?

 

[TranquilMind]

A co-worker told me a story of someone she knew that had testing done and it was wrong. So they fretted the rest of their pregnancy over something that never happened. I don't know how often that happens. I didn't do testing.

 

 

Someone I know personally was told that she was unequivocally having a Downs baby.  She just refused that report, basically saying that she heard him and what he was saying, but she believed otherwise.  He thought she was a crazy woman, of course, especially being a person of faith.

Her child was perfectly normal. 

 

[TranquilMind]

The numbers aren't misleading.  PP as a whole provides a wide range of services.  Obviously any location offering abortions will have a different breakdown than those that don't.  Unless you think PP is forcing abortions upon those who show up at their clinics, I can't imagine how this matters.

 

Of course a deceptive front matters.  Planned Parenthood receives federal money - half a billion dollars of my money and your money (and everyone else who works) every year.    Of course it claims that it doesn't use that money specifically for abortions in order to get it,  but money is fungible.  If it receives money for another reason, it can use it for anything, so long as the books reflect what PP wants to represent in order to keep the money spigot on. 

 

85% of its revenue come from abortions.  http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-non-government-planned-parenthood-revenue

Planned Parenthood exists to perform abortions.  The birth control thing is a side event.  It doesn't perform mammograms at all, despite Obama saying it does. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/02/the-repeated-misleading-claim-that-planned-parenthood-provides-mammograms/

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Of course a deceptive front matters. Planned Parenthood receives federal money - half a billion dollars of my money and your money (and everyone else who works) every year. Of course it claims that it doesn't use that money specifically for abortions in order to get it, but money is fungible. If it receives money for another reason, it can use it for anything, so long as the books reflect what PP wants to represent in order to keep the money spigot on.

 

85% of its revenue come from abortions. http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-non-government-planned-parenthood-revenue

Planned Parenthood exists to perform abortions. The birth control thing is a side event. It doesn't perform mammograms at all, despite Obama saying it does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/02/the-repeated-misleading-claim-that-planned-parenthood-provides-mammograms/

Lol you clearly have never dealt with federal funding.

 

And speaking of misleading, you are doing the same thing by saying 85% of revenue comes from abortions.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The abortion debate has come up on various forums and there have been posters that argued that abortion was called for in every instance whether it was a young person that was pregnant or the baby could be born with issues, etc.

 

And yes I am arguing it. It is the truth. Why would I lie?

 

I am PRO-LIFE. If we make abortion illegal there will be MORE DEATHS. I think there are better ways to combat abortion other than making it illegal.

 

Pro-lifers are not anti-choice any more than pro-choice are pro-abortion.

 

I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

As a rule, the pro life movement is in favor of restricting access to abortion. You may be the exception, but you may want to take a closer look at laws like the one vetoed in Oklahoma this past week.

[TranquilMind]

Lol you clearly have never dealt with federal funding.

 

And speaking of misleading, you are doing the same thing by saying 85% of revenue comes from abortions.

Take it up with C-span. 

[MercyA]

And speaking of misleading, you are doing the same thing by saying 85% of revenue comes from abortions.

 

Take it up with C-span. 

 

The video says that 85% of non-government PP revenue comes from abortions. Maybe that's what ChocolateReign is trying to get at? This article explains how the figure was calculated.

Edited May 22, 2016 by MercyA

[SKL]

I think what they aren't saying is that when people walk into PP with the intention of having an abortion, PP provides related services which don't get classified as "abortion," but they would not be providing those services to those people except for the fact that those people went there intending to seek an abortion.  So you can call it a pregnancy test, sonogram, well check, STD and other minor tests, counseling, pain management, various supplies used for sanitary purposes before and during, post-procedure exam, drugs and supplies to deal with the aftermath, bla bla bla, and how much of that are they categorizing as abortion services?  They know that they can play with words to give the uninformed public the false impression that abortion is just a minor little afterthought at PP.  And yes, that's intentionally misleading.

[TranquilMind]

I think what they aren't saying is that when people walk into PP with the intention of having an abortion, PP provides related services which don't get classified as "abortion," but they would not be providing those services to those people except for the fact that those people went there intending to seek an abortion.  So you can call it a pregnancy test, sonogram, well check, STD and other minor tests, counseling, pain management, various supplies used for sanitary purposes before and during, post-procedure exam, drugs and supplies to deal with the aftermath, bla bla bla, and how much of that are they categorizing as abortion services?  They know that they can play with words to give the uninformed public the false impression that abortion is just a minor little afterthought at PP.  And yes, that's intentionally misleading.

 

Exactly.

 

[hornblower]

I'm a bit unclear now because some of the comments on this thread suggest that

it's ok to make women sit through a bunch of counselling about her fetus & have a bunch of invasive tests if she comes in for an abortion 

but it's not ok to make women sit through a bunch of counselling about her fetus & have a bunch of invasive tests if she might be carrying a child with a genetic disease 

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The video says that 85% of non-government PP revenue comes from abortions. Maybe that's what ChocolateReign is trying to get at? This article explains how the figure was calculated.

 

Correct. 

 

And abortions are the most expensive service offered by PP.