Rachel Maddow: Missouri GOP Now Forcing Women To Have ‘Medically Unnecessary’ Pelvic Exams
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rachel Maddow revealed on Thursday that the Republican-led government in Missouri is now forcing the last abortion clinic in the state to conduct mandatory and medically unnecessary pelvic exams before allowing women to have an abortion.
According to the MSNBC host, “As of last week, every woman seeking a legal abortion in Missouri is being told by the state that she must have a mandatory, medically unnecessary vaginal examination by order of the state of Missouri.”
Maddow added that the move appears to be a push by the state government to get the final abortion clinic in Missouri to shut down.
“This is the latest thing the state of Missouri is doing as of this week as they’re trying to force the last clinic in the state out of business,” the MSNBC host said.
The Republican-led state government in Missouri has decided that as long as they’ve got the state down to one last clinic and as long as they’ve got the clinic on the ropes as they try to yank its license and shut it down, the state government in Missouri has decided that maybe this is an opportunity for them to do something else to women that they’ve never tried before. This is what’s brand-new. You ready? What we have discovered is that as of Thursday last week, as of a week ago today, we can now report that every woman seeking a legal abortion in the state of Missouri is being subjected to a mandatory, medically unnecessary pelvic examination by order of the state government. I’m just going to say that one more: As of last week, every woman seeking a legal abortion in Missouri is being told by the state that she must have a mandatory, medically unnecessary vaginal examination by order of the state of Missouri. Now, doctors at this Missouri clinic, they do perform pelvic exams right before they do an abortion, which is standard medical practice, which is fine, but now as of this week, what the state has started doing, what the state government is now doing, is that they’ve told the doctors at that one remaining clinic that they must do a second medically unnecessary invasive pelvic exam on every woman before she is allowed to start the punitive three-day waiting period that is required of all women who need an abortion in Missouri. … You must, by order of the state, take off your clothes and submit to an intrusive, vaginal inspection that you do not need and that your doctor does not want to give you. This is the latest thing the state of Missouri is doing as of this week as they’re trying to force the last clinic in the state out of business.
Medical professionals in Missouri are speaking out
By forcing the last abortion clinic in Missouri to conduct traumatic and medically unnecessary pelvic exams on any woman seeking an abortion, Republicans in the state are hoping to pressure the final clinic in the state to shut down.
But as Maddow pointed out on Thursday, the new order from the GOP-led government might be putting more unnecessary pressure on doctors and patients, but it so far hasn’t achieved its goal of closing the final Missouri abortion clinic.
Instead, doctors and medical professionals in the state are speaking out in hopes of shining a national spotlight on the GOP’s brazen attack on women’s rights – before it’s too late.
By continuing to escalate their attacks on women’s rights all across the country, from Missouri and Ohio to Alabama and Georgia, Republicans are guaranteeing that women will be as motivated as ever to vote against them in 2020.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
280 visitors
Opposition to late term abortions is not a religious issue.
And who is saying the exam is unnecessary?
What is the medical necessity then? It should be the doctor who decides if it's necessary or not, not the State forcing themselves into a woman's vagina. Just more evidence of how rabid and disgusting the anti-choice crowd has become. Next stop, 'Handmaidens Tale' unless we kick these fascist idiots off the train.
Most opposition seems to be. But no one is advocating for late term abortions anyway.
That would be a doctor's call to make. not some politician.
Umm....DOCTORS!!
Apparently, the requirement to have a physical/pelvic exam prior to an abortion isn't a GOP/partisan issue ... except to Rachel Maddow and other partisans. A pelvic exam and other tests are medically accepted and routine SOP.
Notice the term ultrasound
Notice the word and
Im looking for the word PELVIC EXAM!...
Physical examination and pelvic exams are two different things!
I see you didn't read the information stated in the links I provided in comment 2 .
Apparently, you didn't read the article.
JFC, it is a totally UNNECESSARY medical procedure. Since when does a goddamn politician get to tell women what medical procedures they must get (who the fuck is paying for that?) And by the way, it is NOT for health purposes. It is to put another road block and expense in women's paths to reproductive healthcare. Why do you and others feel so entitled to stick your nose up vaginas to prove you still have control over them? Somehow the followers of christian sharia feel the need to subjugate women through fertility.
How is it possible to safely perform an abortion without a pelvic exam?
It's not, and anyone who says differently doesn't know what s/he is talking about. Please read the links in comment 2 .
“As of last week, every woman seeking a legal abortion in Missouri is being told by the state that she must have a mandatory, medically unnecessary vaginal examination by order of the state of Missouri.”
I fail to see why a woman would be forced to get a vaginal exam if she was requesting an abortion pill.
How effective is the abortion pill?
The abortion pill is very effective. The effectiveness depends on how far along you are in your pregnancy when you take the medicine.
As stated in the links I provided, there are many reasons for a vaginal exam prior to an abortion, no matter what the abortion method is.
If my first 3 aren't good enough, here's another link:
This should be a decision made between the woman and her doctor, not between a handful of religious conservative legislators and a woman's doctor. If her doctor feels it's necessary, then they will discuss the need with their patient and ask for her consent. I find it rather shocking how deep some religious conservatives desire the governments hand to be shoved into a woman's privacy, literally forcing her to undergo a manual vaginal exam, which, without consent, would be considered sexual assault and rape in virtually every civilized nation on the globe.
Regardless of any reason, the decision if a pelvic exam is necessary or not resides with the physician.
and Gordy 3.1.4 ...
All of my comments solely focused on medically accepted pre-abortion practices, and none of them stated that an abortion decision should not be made between a woman and her medical practitioner. In addition, none of them were political.
That pretty much goes along with what I said: the decision if a pelvic exam is necessary or not resides with the physician.
Really?
Well that kind of sounds like you're saying there aren't any safe abortions performed without a pelvic exam. It seems that should be a decision between the doctor and their patient, not between you and the patient. This article isn't about what is "medically accepted", it's about what the State is attempting to force on women without their consent when they try to access their right to a safe and legal abortion. A colonoscopy to look for colon cancer is "medically accepted", but I think that should be something the patient gets to discuss with their doctor, not the State enforcing a "medically acceptable" procedure on a patient without their consent.
For the final time - all of my comments were based upon medical sources and were not my opinion.
Thank you. As my medical links have stated, gestational age is the factor in a medical provider's decision as to which abortion method should be used, and this can only be determined via pelvic exam and/or ultrasound.
So it's not your "opinion" that there are no safe abortions without a pelvic exam, it's a researched fact? So why are there doctors who do not require all women, especially those early in a pregnancy, to get a physical exam when they are prescribed the abortion pill? Nothing you listed said a physical exam is "medically necessary", thus it is optional and the decision lay between a doctor and their patient. That means it is merely your opinion that there are no safe abortions without a physical examination.
The problem is, there are politicians and law makers who want to intervene in the physician and patient's decisions by requiring procedures that may not be necessary. We've seen this before when lawmakers wanted to make it a requirement for all women to have an ultrasound when they choose to have an abortion, even if it's not necessary.
Perhaps you didn't read or understand the link in comment 3.1.2 . I'll post it again:
Please keep in mind that many girls and women aren't medically trained in determining gestational age. That's why they rely on medical professionals.
From the medical data I've read, medical providers advise a pelvic examination and/or ultrasound prior to deciding which method of abortion they should use. I've already given medical links to support my comments, and there are more.
Again, the necessity of a pelvic exam is within the purview of the physician. They may recommend an exam or they may not. But a lawmaker should not make unilateral medically based decisions on his own for the medical community. Especially if the lawmaker is not a medical expert.
Again, I have never said that it wasn't. Have a good weekend.
Read and re-read your link, still see nothing that says it's a medical necessity. It is a choice made between the patient and their doctor. I see "usually adequate" and "recommended" and "may be used", but not a single mention of "medical necessity".
I know that. But I am also pointing out that law makers want to force women to undergo pelvic exams, regardless of physician and/or patient opinions or expertise. Therein lies the problem. Otherwise, I think we are generally in agreement on the matter.
Who gives a shit what any doc besides your own says? Maybe if women had a problem with this we'd ask for help. We don't, stay the hell out of the decisions of others and live your own beliefs.
Most abortions can be done pharmacologically. Pop a pill, no exam necessary. For more invasive procedures, an ultrasound will suffice.
A pelvic exam 72 hours before the abortion is not necessary! Its not going tell you anymore than what ia already known about the pregnancy that the initial pelvic exam did!...
Without weighing in on whether this particular exam is medically necessary in any or all circumstances, I will note that there are many required exams in our lives. Employers, insurers, schools, military all have required exams. Licensing agencies require them. You may need one for traveling. Pretty much any jurisdiction will have medical exams they require before other procedures are done or medicine is prescribed. It's just not that unusual for authorities of some type to require a medical exam before allowing you to do something you generally have some level of "right" to do.
That's got nothing to do with this.
It does if part of the objection is that the government has no business intruding into private medical decisions by requiring this or that exam. It's actually something that happens all the time.
Unfortunately (depending on your point of view, I suppose), legislators make ill-advised, unnecessary, or downright stupid laws all the time. There is no requirement that they make only good laws. For most laws, they need only be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.
A pelvic exam may be unnecessary in the opinion of most doctors, but they are at least somewhat rationally related to getting an abortion. Contrast that with say, an eye exam, something that has no conceivable connection to an abortion.
The state, of course, has a long-established interest in regulating medical procedures for purposes of public health.
The upshot is that a lot of us endure what we would consider to be "medically unnecessary exams" for the simple reason that the government or someone else said we had to.
Don't worry, though, the Supreme Court has already established that such regulations cannot unduly burden a woman's right to an abortion, so there is a tougher hurdle to overcome in these cases.
How many pelvic exams have you had and what did they entail? You seem to know so much about them. After explain why a politician and other strangers (mostly men) have the right to override a woman's personal wishes and best interests in a situation that is 100% her body? And the people who seem to feel most entitled don't have a problem with the high maternal death rate in those same exact places they want to forced unnecessary medical procedures. Can't wait to hear the twisting and turning on this.
If that were true, it wouldn't even be a debate. You're willfully ignoring what you know the other side cares about.
WHO says we have to is the issue here. If my doctor says that I need to have a medically unnecessary procedure done, I can have the procedure, say no or even find a new doctor. When the government mandates a medically unnecessary procedure, I have NO choice. The government is also forcing me to pay for something I don't want and don't need.
I wonder if you can cite another government mandated invasive procedure that isn't exclusive to women? The only one I can think of is the few states that require a blood test for marriage licenses. Yet, to use that example, the state would have to require one test for obtaining a license and another for just before you get married, even if there was only 3 days difference.
It's not a government mandated exam without context. Women don't have to get pelvic exams for no reason. They only have to get them if they want an abortion in that jurisdiction. I know that seems obvious, but it makes a difference.
I think if you're trying to establish unfairness, it doesn't work to go with an inequality established by nature. Government didn't mandate female biology.
Many state issued licenses or offered jobs require physical examinations. That could mean hernia or prostate exams in men that women would never get. It would be silly to complain about that. Women can't help that their physical exam is different than a man's.
What possible 'context' can there be for a SECOND invasive pelvic exam?
The legislative inequality wasn't created by nature, it what created by state governments ONLY legislating restrictions on procedures performed on women and on medication only used by women.
Example, no restriction on Viagra, restrictions on contraceptives.
Now THAT's an exam WITH a context and totally voluntary. The SECOND invasive pelvic exam is unnecessary and is not voluntary.
Hernia exams are not invasive. I have a DOT license. What license requires a prostate exam?
Obtuse.
I couldn't say. I'm not a doctor. But then legislators make all sorts of laws impacting my body that I think are silly. Often, they have what I think are pretty weak reasons.
So, because only women get treated for breast cancer or ovarian cancer, the government shouldn't regulate those activities? That seems like a weird standard.
Not a great example. The side effects are very different.
It can be avoided by not seeking an abortion.
Maybe not to you . . .
Personal
What's really personal is a bunch of MEN who think they have a right to tell women what they can and can't do with their body. Forcing their personal RELIGIOUS beliefs on all WOMEN. MEN who don't even know what pregnancy or abortion entails. We really give zero fucks what any person's opinion is. What is unacceptable is thinking your opinion usurps our rights.
Legislatures have nothing to do with the policy we are talking about.
What state government regulates one cancer differently than another?
BTW, it's your fabricated 'weird standard'.
Point? What evidence do you have that the restrictions on contraceptives have anything to do with their side effects?
Hernia exams can be avoided by not seeking a DOT license. See how that bullshit works?
Not to ANYONE. An invasive procedure is when the body is "invaded", or entered by a needle, tube, device, or scope. Placing a hand on your groin and asking you to cough isn't invasive.
Only if you internalize the observation.
[deleted]
I want to drive my car down the road at 100mph but other people want to tell me I can't do that with my body. Guess I should be upset about that. Aren't you upset about that? Why not? It's my car and my body.
Still has nothing to do with this.
No, you're the one ranting about procedures only done on women. You're not explaining it very well. Based on your reference to Viagra, you seem to think all procedures and all drugs are the same in every way and therefore shouldn't be regulated differently. That's not realistic.
It's not bullshit. That's actually my point. I understand that the stakes will be different for individuals, but the point stands. You don't like the exam? Don't get your abortion in that place. There are people traveling the world to get precisely the kind of care they want. They shop around.
And yes, I know very well that not everyone has that luxury. I don't have that luxury. Life is unfair like that.
Oh! So now you think you get to tell me how I should feel about the medical care I am getting. That's rich!
Was it directed at me or not? If you want to insult people, at least have the courage to own it.
You are the one characterizing a question as a rant. Well done.
What do you need clarification on?
What lead you to that unfounded conclusion?
That's on you since you fabricated that strawman.
It is when you answer a question about 'INVASIVE' procedures with bullshit about a NON-INVASIVE hernia exam. It's a deflection, not a point.
The exam, a medically unnecessary invasive procedure, is an undue burden to abortion and Unconstitutional.
There are people right here spewing irrelevant clap trap.
We're not talking about the unfairness of life in general, we are talking about the unfairness of a SPECIFIC harmful policy put in place by a SPECIFIC government official.
I didn't tell you how to 'feel' Tacos!, I told you the difference between and invasive and a non-invasive procedure.
Though one would think that someone who is adverse to having a doctor touch his groin through his clothes would have empathy for a woman who is being forced to allow a doctor to insert a speculum and his/her fingers into her vagina by order of a state official.
Actually, it was directed at your comment.
I totally own my stated observation about your comment. If you are insulted by that observation perhaps reflection is in order.
Ridiculous obfuscation.
The fact that you complained about Viagra being regulated differently from other contraceptives while ignoring specific side effects.
Let me help you then. There is more than one definition for "invasive." There is this one:
but there is also this one:
Both matter to people in medical settings. If all you are concerned about is the introduction of an instrument into the body, then you should be complaining about doctors who stick a tongue depressor in your mouth even though you didn't come to see them about a sore throat. I recognize that both a pelvic exam and a hernia exam intrude on the personal dignity of the patient. I think you do, too. Especially since you go on to ask for my empathy.
I absolutely do.
At the risk of TMI, that has not been my experience.
The thing you are missing is that I am only discussing the ins and outs of the topic and examining the logic between facts and policy. I have made no policy prescriptions. Nowhere do I say "we should do X about abortion. I actually don't have a lot of strong opinions about abortion policy. I don't know what the right answers are. But I can see that there are a lot of irrational arguments about various aspects of it.
A comment on its own can be "obtuse" without the speaker of it being obtuse? How? Sorry, but I see that hair split quite a lot around here as a dodge to avoid being busted for violating the CoC. I don't buy it. It's also a claim you make without a supportive argument. I see no reason to take it as anything other than personal.
If you are confused, you should try asking for clarification.
I didn't complain, I used Viagra, a Rx used exclusively be men and contraceptives used exclusively by women.
BTW, since when is Viagra a contraceptive?
Which is irrelevant since we have been talking about a MEDICAL PROCEDURE all along. Yours is just a deflection from that fact.
I recognize that you're trying and failing to equate the two.
All evidence to the contrary.
Well WTF kind of license are you taking that exam for?
Yet the examples you use tell alot about your position...
As with so many other things, it has to do with intent.
Well you have a remedy available to you. Flag it and don't reply.
BTFW, it's ironic that you're irritated that I didn't violate the CoC.
I won't argue with you about it, take it any way you want.
No, what I tell you about my position tells you all you should know about my position. Everything else you think you know is simply what you want to believe.
I'm not confused at all. I've become used to your circumlocution.
Well, this statement by you kind of implies the opposite. About my comments, you wrote:
which I understand to mean that you think I am saying something that is unclear, unintelligible or obscure. But just throwing labels around doesn't promote a conversation. Maybe you don't know what you're saying or maybe you are just making with the personal attacks again. Like the bit about circumlocution. Another unsupported attack. It honestly seems like you're more interesting in fighting than working anything out. Maybe we should drop it.
Just because your comment is unintelligible doesn't mean I'm confused.
Well, if I understand it but you can't . . . seems like you would be the one who is confused by it.
Anyway, you can't or won't even explain which part of it is unintelligible, so it really just seems like you're here to lob insults.
Boo!
Try again, not even remotely the same. Just a woman and her body, not a car. Not your business.
Tell me when you want me and Nancy Pelosi forcing you to undergo and pay for unnecessary medical procedures. I've got a few I'd like to require and assume you (not personal, tacos, all plural yous) all would be willing to allow a little penile penetration to get the medical help you need to raise that dick. It is hard to believe how many people who scream 'get the government out of our lives' want to force this on women trying to maintain their health. But there we are.
Um, not to give TMI, but doctors have been grabbing my junk since I was a teen, probably because some government licensing authority told them they should. I very much doubt that absent any actual symptoms of hernia or prostate cancer that it's "medically necessary" to perform such an exam. By the way, because I have a commercial driver license, I am required to get a medical exam like that every two years. I'm pretty sure that whatever is going on with my balls doesn't have anything to do with my ability to drive safely.
So stay the hell out of women's business, its that freaking simple. This has nothing to do with employment either, this is personal.
It's really not. That should be obvious to even the most casual observer of this debate over time.
I've yet to see one point made why one religious belief usurps personal rights. We don't accept the christian taliban, where ignorant strangers force their religious beliefs on women. There is no acceptable explanation for some men (who don't even know what happens during any of this) to feel they have that power over women's bodies. I can tell they think they do and they are trying, but no way in hell women will let those assholes assert control. That should be obvious to even the most casual observer of this debate.
Missouri’s last abortion clinic is still open, albeit with one formidable caveat: In order to help patients terminate legally, doctors must perform not one, but two vaginal exams beforehand. There is no medically legitimate reason to justify duplicate exams — a point on which the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists adamantly agrees — and doctors say the “invasive” obligation exists solely to deter Missourians from accessing care that, at least for now, remains their legal right.
“To put it succinctly, it feels like we are an instrument of the state in sanctioning sexual assault,” Colleen McNicholas, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, tells the Cut. “It has been really quite emotionally traumatizing, both for patients and for providers.”
Last month, Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region announced that it would likely have to shut its doors , due to the state health department’s reinterpretation of its long-standing “informed consent” law. The department refused to renew the clinic’s license, unless providers agreed to its arbitrarily harsh conditions. Missouri requires abortion-seekers to make two appointments: During the first, the same physician who will perform the procedure provides counseling (which itself includes medically inaccurate, but state-mandated, information) purportedly intended to help patients decide whether or not they want to carry a pregnancy to term.
After a 72-hour waiting period, they can then return to the clinic to terminate. Now, doctors at PPSLR must perform a vaginal exam during that initial appointment, on top of the standard-issue exam performed on the day of the procedure. Making a patient lie back while a doctor inserts fingers and instruments into their vagina, under the guise of informed consent, “provides us no relevant medical information to help the patients make the best choice in approaching their abortion care,” McNicholas emphasizes.
Planned Parenthood requested an injunction to keep the clinic afloat, and last week, a judge headed off the looming closure with a temporary restraining order . The health center will remain operational until the judge makes his final ruling, effectively obligating staff to work with an ax hanging over their heads.
“That [ruling] could come any day,” McNicholas explains. “There could be a patient in a gown, waiting to have her abortion next, and when the judge makes his decision, may have to get dressed and leave.” As a result, she continued, “Every day, we’re trying to figure out, ‘Okay, we can start today; should we start earlier? Should we bring patients in sooner, in the event that today is the day and it happens … before we can complete all the procedures?”
“Imagine,” she adds, “being this Missourian who navigated [all those] hoops, had an unnecessary pelvic exam, and ultimately not being able to get the care you need and deserve.”
Missouri builds an inordinate number of roadblocks into abortion access: Public and private insurers cover the procedure only in cases of life endangerment, and the state has outlawed the use of telemedicine to dispense abortions remotely. Missouri also ranks among the handful of states that force patients to make two separate trips to a clinic, at least three days apart. “For those [patients] who live close to the clinic, they may come back in 72 hours,” McNicholas notes. “For most, they go back to where they live, outside of urban St. Louis. They make their way back within a week or two weeks, sometimes even longer, as they navigate the geography difference, the transportation issues, child-care coverage, negotiating another day off of work.” Those hidden expenses add up , often pushing the procedure further into a patient’s pregnancy, which not only hikes up the cost, but also narrows the window in which they can legally terminate.
Adding to the stress, McNicholas says, is widespread confusion over the current law: Missouri recently joined a string of other right-leaning states in passing a near-total abortion ban, criminalizing termination after eight weeks — even when unwanted pregnancies result from rape, incest, and human trafficking. The law would not take effect until August 28, but according to McNicholas, “The general public doesn’t quite know how to separate all the different pieces” at play in the state’s attack on abortion, nor “what those pieces mean for their care.”
“We inform them that, on the day you come for your consent [appointment] … we can provide care; when your 72-hour waiting period is up, we may not be able to,” she explains. “They also know — and I hope they hear us [when we] tell them — that regardless of what happens, we will still help them get that care, whether that means in our building or … helping them navigate crossing state lines,” likely to a clinic in Kansas or Illinois.
As anti-abortion organizations and legislators, emboldened by an increasingly conservative political climate and an administration sympathetic to their agenda, continue to tear away at a constitutional right, we’ve compiled a list of ways you can help . Right now, abortion remains legal nationwide.
christian taliban are here. Prepare.
The same guy that led the push in N. Carolina to say that coal ash in the drinking water was safe is the same guy leading this crap in Missouri. And, he is GOP.