TSA now setting the standard with which other invasive measures are compared

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Mike, Feb 22, 2012.

  1. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Can you even detect a fetus with an abdominal ultrasound during the first trimester?
     
  2. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I'm not a supporter of abortion but this is a disgusting abuse of power. Obviously this is punitive. The gov needs to get out of the doctors office.
    Exactly.This isn't about informed consent, which I do support...
     
  3. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Health insurance isn't going to cover this.
     
  4. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    My understanding is that the image is too "blurry" for the legislators' tastes.
     
  5. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Simply unbelievable that something like this would get this far in the legislative process. The procedure is likely a sound medical diagnostic tool but Government has no business mandating any medical procedure, much less one this invasive.

    This an increasingly slippery slope and the public is becoming desensitized to the ratcheting up of these invasions. This goes back to mandated smallpox vaccinations, then Perry's mandate on the HPV vaccine, then the TSA gropings and strip searches and dozens of other incremental erosions of our basic human rights.

    It is both disgusting and frightening that so many people remain oblivious to this and characterize those of us who object to this as fringe loonies.
     
  6. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    It can even be very useful if the fetus is going t0 survive, but that's usually not part of the equation in an abortion. Maybe the governor has a "Chertoff" in the family who hawks ultrasound equipment?
     
  7. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I wouldn't put HPV in loony category. It's a serious problem with very serious consequence. Problem is, they're not even trying to vaccinate half the people who can transmit it.

    And for those that would be vaccinated, most parents like to imagine that their daughters will be virtuous little angels ... and most will be mistaken on that point.
     
  8. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Both the ultrasound and vaccines have their benefits, but my contention is that Government has no business forcing any medical procedure on citizens. Something may be a good idea and it might be worthwhile to provide incentives to encourage use of them but the choice should ultimately rest with the individual.
     
  9. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    An ultrasound before a surgical abortion is typical. It's for the protection of the physician. What if s/he performs an abortion on a patient with an ectopic pregnancy? The consequences could be dire, because the patient might believe the bleeding and discomfort she experienced later was simply part of recovering from the abortion. The doctor would be sued silly, and rightfully so. This isn't an ultrasound to count fingers and toes and check the formation of major organs and spine, this is a quick check to make sure the pregnancy is in the uterus and that there are no shocking anomolies that might lead to complications. This ultrasound doesn't come with a high price tag because there's no highly skilled analysis required,.

    That being said, I didn't know that a transvaginal ultrasound was an invasive procedure. I don't think the governor was aware either. If it protected the patient's health then it might be a good idea. I doubt it achieves any benefit to the patient, so let's hope the measure passes away quietly.
     
  10. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    This thread's OP was so obtusely related to Aviation Passenger Security, and the replies not at all, so a respectful vote from me to move to a different forum. :)

    --Jon
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  11. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    perhaps Civil Liberties might be better. It's an interesting issue though, and very interesting that the popular culture ties invasive things like this to TSA. That is great.
     
  12. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    In my spare time, I'll split the thread. Not sure how soon that will be.

    In the meantime, it's civil, let it continue. :)
     
  13. FaustsAccountant

    FaustsAccountant Original Member

    Well okay, maybe-but 'with power comes responsibility'-the governor has a responsibility to understand every detail of a bill he/she is signing or not signing. A responsibility greater than you or I to understand.
     
  14. FaustsAccountant

    FaustsAccountant Original Member

    I'm leaning towards a multi-prong purpose. 'price 'em if they're not scared.'

    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2752666

    "Currently, women considering an abortion are given a pamphlet on the development of an unborn child. The Family Foundation believes the information provided to the woman should be more personal.
    "When a woman looks at a pamphlet and sees that, it may not have the same impact as looking on a screen and seeing her unborn child living inside of her," says Freund."

    Now granted that statement is coming from a Pro-Life group, but did they feed that line to the politicians?
    I don't believe in 'by any means necessary'-look where that path took us with TSA.
     
  15. TravelnMedic

    TravelnMedic Original Member

    yes at about 8-10 weeks its detectable with a abdominal ultrasound. Prior to that a vaginal ultrasound is needed to detect a heartbeat, but a Hcg blood serum level can be used to confirm a pregnancy.

    Note to self, don't ever move back to the east coast; If my SO was forced through this the Dr would find out what its like to see there life flash before there eyes with a pucker factor of a million courtesy of a creation of Samuel Colt and my lawyer .

    Lawmakers have lost there ever loving minds and are suffering from terminal glaucoma and need to be removed from the gene pool.
     
  16. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Perhaps the lawmakers stopped trying to legislate morality.
     
    Sunny Goth likes this.
  17. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Yeah....

    I see them as related although not just legally. Norms and bodily integrity are also issues. We're moving the goalposts in both cases.

    Ten years ago it was unthinkable that most everyone going through airport security would by default go through a strip-search machine. Sure, there are a lot of privacy and other legal issues around the use of these machines, but most people back then would have felt profoundly uncomfortable walking through a machine that strips you naked. Now, many people go through the machines while declaring 'no I don't like it, but better to be safe.....' And off they go. We're not shocked anymore because of the intermediate steps that have been implemented all along the way. And - by 'we're not shocked', I don't mean those of us on TUG. ;) A lot of people today are perfectly okay with being strip-searched in this way.

    Similarly, ten years ago attacks on reproductive rights focused more on the edges - late-term abortions, teens having abortions, or broad attacks on the right to have an abortion itself, but attacks on the woman's bodily integrity were unheard of. See Rust v. Sullivan and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Neither of these cases (or others that I haven't cited) involved such an invasive practice as the transvaginal ultrasound or other practices like it. Today we've reached the point where politicians think it's a-okay to require such a practice. The only reason why the governor backed down is because of his political aspirations.

    Something else these two issues have in common -- they don't offer any benefits, but they do actually do harm. In the case of the scanners, there have been numerous reports about how badly they work. Pleats foil them, metallic threads in sweaters foil them, spreading materials into thin pancakes foils them - and they can't see materials that are placed in a body cavity. And the backscatter machines will cause cancer in some number of cases. In the case of the transvaginal ultrasound, all the practice does is drive up the price of an abortion, humiliate the woman, cause pain - emotional/physical, and bring back trauma (for women who have been raped).

    And what happens if the Supreme Court were to decide that requiring a transvaginal ultrasound wasn't an 'undue burden' (the standard developed in Casey) for the woman before obtaining an abortion? Would it open the door (if only a crack) for the TSA to use more invasive practices to find terrorists? After all, the medical procedure for the ultrasound would be required (no consent needed) before one could obtain an abortion, so what's to prevent the government from requiring other medical procedures without consent before one could fly?

    I'm sure the TSA wouldn't require everyone to have invasive procedures done to them -- maybe only people that BDOs pick out would be selected (using BDOs as a divide and conquer strategy). But it's still a slippery slope I'd rather not go down....

    In my opinion preserving the right to one's bodily integrity is hugely important - not just for reproductive rights but also to prevent DHS/TSA from making screening practices worse than they already are.
     
    Monica47, Lisa Simeone and Doober like this.
  18. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    Oh, like that article that showed how Target knew a teenage girl was pregnant before her father did?
     
  19. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Bodily integrity is a huge issue, and we must stand against those who would force such things on people. However, I see no reason to sugarcoat the fact that in abortion there is a person in utero whose bodily integrity is being violated in a major way.

    Sorry, but I'm not seeing much connection between a TSA which destroys civil rights and those who would protect the civil rights of someone in utero. Even in the latter, though, ends don't justify the means, and the means chosen by the Virginia law should be rejected.
     
  20. FaustsAccountant

    FaustsAccountant Original Member

    Erm...TSA first said the scanner weren't going to be use as primary, but here we are where the march every passenger they can steer, force, intimidate and demand with their best effort through the scanner.
    They keep bring up suspicions of the possibilities of devices placed inside the human body, now whether this is a real threat or not, considering TSA's track record of ramrodding whatever they please...I fear further abuse.

    How many years ago was it we'd never imagine that a TSA screener could rub every inch of our bodies at their discretion?

    I do think we can be staring at that slope a lot closer and faster than we'd believe. So I couldn't agree with you more.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.

Share This Page