Posted on 05/27/2004 5:34:46 AM PDT by Lexinom
Let's see: educating a calloused and ignorant public to the humanity of the "fetus", and in the long run saving many, many meaningful lives from wrongful capital punishment.
I'm starting a pro-life news pinglist, as I've not seen one on FR. Let me know if you would like to be added...
Thanks a farking lot, FDA. Who approved those machines in the first place for use on every one of my kids? How about getting together on this stuff before you run your mouths?
Well, I have learned that X-rays are actually a form of radiation! Laboratory tests have proven that radiation can seriously damage tissue! An untrained laboratory technician could expose a patient to deadly levels of this radiation. We must ban all X-rays immediately.
Abortion rights advocates should be livid that the government is telling them what not do to with their bodies.
Some pro-life activists wonder whether the warning could have a chilling effect on the use of ultrasound to save the lives of unborn children
Odd sounding sentence to have added at the top of this story. It has no real relationship to the article.
This same d*ckhead Mel Stratmeyer, out of the other side of his mouth, is telling medical workers they are imagining their latex allergies.
If pro-lifers were to dig into this guy's social and family life, it is dead certain they would find a rabid pro-abortionist using his government lectern as a propaganda tool.
The FDA's warning states, "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."
1) What studies? Cite them at very least.
2) What are "low levels"? Is that a function of time of exposure? Amplitude? Frequency? Some combo of these? Do all ultrasounds work the same way? Specifics, please.
3) What physical effects? What counts as "jarring"? At what point does "jarring" become dangerous? Same with a "rise" in temperature. Specifics, please.
4) How does this fit into the overall spectrum of dangers to baby? What's worse: abortion or an ultrasound? What's worse: an ultrasound or a diet of cheetoes and pepsi?
Long live the nanny state. < /sarcasm >
Note: the previous 4 points are rhetorical questions. You don't need to try to answer them for me- I already know the answers.
How much you wanna bet that the law will be crafted in such a way that Pregnancy Crisis Centers fall under the "entertainment" classification...
Put me on your pro-life ping list.
heh, the funny, and sad, thing is that if X-ray machines were invented today they would have a hell of a time getting them alowed for medical use.
This sounds like they are only going after non-medical establishments that offer "entertainment" ultrasounds as keepsake items.
The hospital in our area offers these as well, though done by their trained ultrasonographer. I suspect that in such situations, the FDA would have no problem with the procedure. As such, maybe the crisis centers could partner with local OB/GYNs to provide this service, and the FDA can put a regulation in place that requires all ultrasounds to be performed by licensed technicians, much the same way they now regulate tattoo artists in some areas. That way, businesses that want to offer the entertainment ultrasounds can still do so, once they hire a legitimate tech to do the procedure.
I have to admit, I can see where the FDA is coming from on this one. I too have wondered whether there might be risks associated with ultrasounds, seeing as how ultrasound is not a passive imaging technology. Sound is sound, and can have a physical effect on the human body.
" . . .The FDA says ultrasound imaging of an unborn child should only be used if it provides a medical benefit . .. "
The FDA has just exposed it's political, amoral, murderous leanings.
It seems to me that ultra sounds have been pretty darn safe for awhile now, no warnings issued, until, of course, it looks like the tides could turn on Roe v Wade.
The FDA appears to be in cahoots with abortionists and democrats. How much money, I woder, does the FDA receive from special interests for its attempts to hide the real "child within" from expectant mothers.
All women considering abortions, should have ultra sound available.
Jeez, take a deep breath and calm down. All medical technologies carry some risk. Because ultrasound is non invasive and painless, people think ultrasound pictures are cute and they are the new baby pictures. Ultrasound imaging businesses have been started to provide baby pictures to pregnant women who want them.
All the FDA is doing is warning that unnecessary ultrasound might be risky. We went through the same cycle with X-rays which, for a while, were party items.
Lil'freeper,
Did you notice they stopped at "Ultrasound is a form of energy". Uh, OK, so is a lightbulb. Please consider adding to your list at #2 low levels of what TYPE of energy?
If a kid is born with his fingers stuck in his ears, he's had too much ultra-sound exposure.
By the FDA's logic, expectant mothers should sit quietly in the dark.
Not that anyone pays attention to that pesky Constitution thing anymore, but, just for the entertainment value, you have to wonder how an untrasound machine or a tattoo needle is linked back to the Commerce Clause in the FDA's enabling legislation.
I think it's very related. In fact, abortion politics was the first thing I thought of when I saw the headline. Some FDA 'crat doesn't want women thinking of their children as anything but masses of undeveloped tissue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.