Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Georgia blogger tries to influence Illinois legislature

Posted in:

Illinois

Georgia blogger Straight up With Sherri has posted the e-mail addresses of every member of the Illinois Senate’s Health & Human Services Committee and urged her readers to lobby against a bill that would limit ultrasound tests to doctors and healthcare specialists acting under doctors’ orders.

Pro-life crisis pregnancy centers often use the ultrasound scans to talk women out of having abortions, and the bill, HB 2493, passed the House before the pro-life lobbyists figured out what was going on. I’ve already reported on this bill in the Capitol Fax.

So, if you’re one of those legislators and you all of a sudden start receiving e-mails from Georgia, you now know why.

Straight up With Sherri wasn’t done with her Illinois project, however. She caught Rep. Ron Stephens’ appearance on Scarborough Country this week to discuss the governor’s emergency order on pharmacies and morning after pills.

The Georgian was so impressed that she has asked her readers to e-mail the governor in support of Stephens’ efforts to block the guv’s emergency order.

UPDATE: Prompted by a commenter, I visited the FDA’s website:

It’s risky business taking pictures of unborn babies when there’s no medical need to do so. That’s the word from the Food and Drug Administration, which is concerned about companies trying to turn an important medical procedure into a prenatal portrait tool. […]

As compelling as these sneak previews may be, the FDA is warning women about the potential hazards of getting keepsake videos. The agency also is warning companies against creating them for entertainment purposes. While ultrasound has been around for many years, expectant women and their families need to know that the long-term effects of repeated ultrasound exposures on the fetus are not fully known. In light of all that remains unknown, having a prenatal ultrasound for non-medical reasons is not a good idea. […]

Ultrasonic fetal scanning, from a medical standpoint, generally is considered safe if properly used when information is needed about a pregnancy. Still, ultrasound is a form of energy, and even at low levels, laboratory studies have shown it can produce physical effects in tissue, such as jarring vibrations and a rise in temperature. Although there is no evidence that these physical effects can harm a fetus, the FDA says the fact that these effects exist means that prenatal ultrasounds can’t be considered completely innocuous.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 7:41 am

Comments

One interesting aspect of the ultrasound bill is this: There is NO scientific data showing it causes harm.

Contrast that with the abortion/breast cancer link where the scientific data is, at best mixed, with some peer review data showing a link.

Now, you can argue the various merit of studies on both sides of that. Yet, at least there is something on each side.

Contrast that with ultrasounds on infants. What is out there is overwhelmingly on the “it’s safe” side. And yet it must be banned because there “might” be a risk.

Can Planned Parenthood really be that worried about their P&L? Because there is surely no other reason, except the huge success pregnancy centers are having in stopping abortion via ultrasound.

Politics? Well, if some clever politician used this as an example of hypocracy, it just might get him elected.

Comment by Pat Collins Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 10:34 am
Specifically, this could cause problems for Sen. Althoff.

I’m surprised that Jack “I take no chances” Franks voted for it.

I also guess it will earn PR Linder yet another primary challenge.

Comment by Pat Collins Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 10:43 am
==Contrast that with the abortion/breast cancer link where the scientific data is, at best mixed, with some peer review data showing a link.

This is simply false. People not familiar with how science is actually done and reported find one old study and declare there are mixed results. The problem is that the best research that solves the methodological problems don’t show a link. To suggest then that results are mixed misrepresents the most recent and best research and contributes to scientific ignorance.

There may be ’something’ on both sides, that doesn’t mean that those somethings are even close to being equal.

Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 2:37 pm
I’m going to back up Archpundit on this.

The studies are actually remarkably consistent about breast cancer: if you carry a pregnancy to term when you are younger, you are at a lower risk for breast cancer. So, it doesn’t matter if a woman miscarries, has an abortion, or simply does not get pregnant. What matters is whether a woman bears a child.

The folks claiming a link between abortion and breast cancer are misusing science and statistics.

Comment by Vasyl Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 3:18 pm
Let’s see if I understand this ultrasound bill:
The abortion lobby argues that ultrasound might possibly harm the fetus when the pro-life agencies use it to show mom what her product of conception looks like. Yet the abortion crowd does more than possible harm to the fetus. Speaking of hypocrisy, is Mulligan’s concern for the unborn real?

Comment by FightforJustice Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 7:29 pm
Arch & Vasyl miss my point: you can argue where the studies showing a link have reporting bias or not. What you can’t argue is that there are real MD’s who have done real research that show “something” might be there.

And even the FDA’s website points ONLY to “keepsake” specifically talking about higher energies for better videos. I also note that the FDA considered the evidence mixed until the mid 90’s.

One might wonder why we had to use Denmark as a study place. I guess US clinics need not report stats like the Danes do.

The only bad things it mentions about ultrasound are delayed speech, and lefthanded-ness.

Bottom line STILL is that there is a rush to legislate with no proof of harm (especially in the crisis clinic application) other than to the profit margin of abortion clinics. One might think regulating power levels, etc are appropriate for a place with no known bad issues.

I also found several law firms that are publishing articles that abortion clinics have an ethical duty to inform their patients, and suggesting tort as a real option.

I’m not sure which is more ironic: PP being concerned about fetal health, or the vision of the two main Dem. special interest groups going at it.

Comment by Pat Collins Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 9:03 pm
===MD’s who have done real research that show “something” might be there.

But you miss our point. The research has been superceded. You don’t use inferior and older studies to argue with newer studies and better methodology.

I don’t have a strong reason to stop people from using ultrasounds, but I know little about them.

That said, in discussing it, there is a big difference pointing to a completely separate area in which there is scientific consensus and trying to compare it.

But even then, in doing elective procedures, the standard isn’t whether there is proof (not a scientific standard, a mathematical one), but whether the procedure has evidence of safety. Ultrasounds generally do, but the emphasis is on the wrong issue.

===I also found several law firms that are publishing articles that abortion clinics have an ethical duty to inform their patients, and suggesting tort as a real option.

Talk about an excuse for tort reform–if the scientific evidence is consistent then there isn’t a reason to inform–in fact, doctors have a duty to report that there isn’t evidence suggesting a link. A doctor who told a patient that would be performing malpractice.

==
I’m not sure which is more ironic: PP being concerned about fetal health, or the vision of the two main Dem. special interest groups going at it.

Planned Parenthood is an essential provider of prenatal care in many cities. Something that most ‘crisis centers’ can’t provide in any significant capacity.

Planned Parenthood strives for medically accurate answers and quality services to men and women’s health care needs–not putting an agenda on individuals who seek medical care. It would be nice if others were so concerned with providing health care to expecting mothers and not simply convincing a pregnant woman of a particular outcome.

Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 20, 05 @ 4:00 pm