Home Browse Forums WebChat Groups Portal
Welcome, guest, log in below:
Name Password


Register Forgot Password?
5 Online
This is a comment on Orphan law by subversive-imaginati
Report
The aim may be there, certainly, but the language (at least what I've read) isn't indicative of that. Some protective measures in terms of copyrights of written work are already pretty firmly established, from what I've read, and can't be undone by the Orphan act.
Report

I wouldn't put any bets on them not being undone, technically the orphan works bill violates other laws and a recent law in Oklahoma violates constitutionally guaranteed rights. Sometimes the law makers just ride roughshod over existing laws.
Report
What recent Oklahoma law would that be?
Report

The one that mandates that all women seeking an abortion have to have a non-necessary ultrasound either abdominal or vaginal, whichever gives the clearest picture. Since most abortions are first trimester, that would be vaginal in a large percentage of cases. Vaginal ultrasounds are humiliating, painful and quite frankly forcing them on women is medical rape. There is also no exception for women seeking it because of rape or incest.

The law was pushed through by pro-life groups and has the following aims, one it will drive the price of abortions up because the unnecessary and humilating procedure will have to be paid by someone, two they're hoping it will guilt women into keeping pregnancies they perhaps cannot handle, so it's basically designed to be a roadblock and to try guilt tactics on women who are already under stress. Plus a "lovely" side effect of vaginal ultrasounds is that if the woman changes her mind? The ultrasound carries a risk of harming the fetus so not only may a woman be giving birth to a baby she cannot support and did not want due to guilt tactics but the kid could be born with medical issues thanks to the ultrasound.
Report
Actually, vaginal ultrasounds are not painful, nor humiliating. It is simply the tip of an instrument that looks something quite like a dildo, inserted naught but an inch inside the woman. I have no idea what kind of vaginal ultrasounds you've been told of, but I know of no kind that is painful. For the vaginal ultrasound to hurt the baby it would have to enter the cervix, and go beyond, which it does not.
Report

The doctor's claim smears are not painful as well, but they are painful to some women and women who have had vaginal ultrasounds done personally have told me that they were actually painful. Furthermore I've had an ultrasound myself, if you're going to tell me that them jamming an instrument into your flesh and jerking it around to get a clear picture isn't painful then you're barking up the wrong tree, I expected to have bruises and I was only having a routine chest ultrasound.

There are two schools of thought when it comes to ultrasound, there are those who say because twenty years of using them hasn't shown any really awful side effects, they're safe, then are those doctors who realise that x-ray were once considered safe and several high placed medical organisations actually reccommend it to only be used in a few situations, suggesting that doctors suspect that it might not be as safe as we've been led to believe.
Report
Barking up the wrong tree? Excuse me, but I myself had a vaginal ultrasound just earlier this week and there was no pain or "jerking around" or "jamming into flesh".

Chest ultrasound? I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing ultrasounds of a different variety. I don't know of any ultrasounds, outside of the other end would consists of jamming anything anywhere. Perhaps you could educate me? (Not being sarcastic at all here, to let you know, I honestly am curious).

I've had many a bodily scan, none of which were painful or uncomfortable, save for the CAT scan of my ovaries, where, well, let's not get into that. That is a different subject entirely.

As far the ultrasound being unsafe, I couldn't say. I don't manufacture ultrasounds, nor am I a doctor of any kind. But, I think it's fairly safe to say that if there was any doubt to them being unsafe, something would change, and quickly.
Report

That's you, perhaps you were easier to scan or perhaps your nurse has a defter touch.

Firstly some people have a lower than normal pelvic bone which would mean no picture unless the probe was placed against the cervix, 2 out of five women have a reverse sloped vagina, so it's not as easy as it looks on the medical diagram. Even in something like a smear where they can directly see what they're doing, they have to go looking for the cervix in some women, now imagine someone moving a probe around in there because they can't find the implanted fetus... ouch is all I can say.

If they can't get a clear picture they do press down harder when giving ultrasounds, when I had my chest one done they had trouble getting a clear image and had to re-arrange me and press down hard with the wand to get a clear picture.

I've had quite a few as well including MRIs, ultrasounds and various other scans.

I think you'll find many things remain on market despite risks. In cases like [link] it took six years for them to react despite babies being born with horrible deformities. In quite a few cases we really don't know the long term implications of what we put into our bodies all too often.
Report
Perhaps so.

I myself have an inverted cervix, though I think that is different from what you are speaking of...

And yes, now that I see what you mean, I can understand how a chest ultrasound would hurt, as when they do it on the tummy, there's more skin and stuff there. On the chest it's just bone. So yeah, owch.

As for the Thalidomide, I have heard of that, and 6 years, in retrospect seems a short time, compared to some other things in the distant past that have been on the market. Long term implications -- makes me think of Agent Orange, where Vietnam vet's kid's are affected (there was a time the doctors thought that my disease was caused by Agent Orange that was possibly in my father's system. Luckily, he tested negative) still today.
Report

Even with the fact that it was done partially over one breast not just bone the pressure still was pretty uncomfortable.

They've also changed the pill a number of times over the years as formerly considered safe variations of it were discovered to be not so safe.
Report
Yes, I can imagine how that would be very uncomfortable.

I suppose that with things such as medications, it's touch and go. A lot of things have been changed multiple times, after finding out something in it was dangerous to a mass amount of people. Trial and error, unfortunately.

Email addresses