Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif. to Ban Unlicensed Use of Ultrasounds
http://www.comcast.net/ ^ | 5 4 06 | Associated Press

Posted on 05/04/2006 7:24:46 PM PDT by freepatriot32

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The California Assembly has voted to restrict the use of ultrasound machines for personal use, approving a bill that would allow them to be sold only to licensed professionals.

Democratic Assemblyman Ted Lieu introduced the bill after "Mission: Impossible III" star Tom Cruise bought an ultrasound machine to see images of his unborn child. The actor's fiancee, Katie Holmes, gave birth to the couple's daughter, Suri, last month in Los Angeles.

Doctors and technologists typically receive years of training to perform ultrasound exams, which help obstetricians check a baby's health.

Cruise was criticized by doctors who said improperly using the devices can harm a fetus.

Lieu said his bill was intended to prohibit copycats from using the devices at home. An ultrasound machine listed on the online auction site eBay was selling for $5,500 Wednesday.

"What we don't want is someone who unintentionally damages the fetus," Lieu said Thursday on the Assembly floor.

The chamber voted 55-7 to pass the bill and send it to the Senate.

The bill prohibits a manufacturer or person from selling, leasing or distributing an ultrasound machine to any person other than a licensed practitioner.

Some Republican lawmakers questioned whether the bill would prohibit the use of ultrasound devices by private companies that provide keepsake photos for parents-to-be.

Lieu said it would not, as long as the person operating the machine was licensed under a certain section of the state's Business and Professions Code.

Laboratory tests have shown that certain diagnostic levels can affect human tissue, according to the Food and Drug Administration. The agency has determined that keepsake fetal videos and personal snapshots are an unapproved use of a medical device.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: abortions; ban; biggovrunamuck; california; californication; govwatch; libertarians; nannystate; naral; of; sacramento; to; ultrasound; ultrasounds; unlicensed; use
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
Lieu said it would not, as long as the person operating the machine was licensed under a certain section of the state's Business and Professions Code.

Translation give the state 10's of thousands of dollars in lisencing fees and we will let you use the machine. Cause lord knows it takes years of training and 10's of thousands of dollars to figure out how to put a paddle over a stomach and hit the on button

1 posted on 05/04/2006 7:24:48 PM PDT by freepatriot32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

ping


2 posted on 05/04/2006 7:25:03 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
"Lieu said his bill was intended to prohibit copycats from using the devices at home..."

Darn, and I was going to go over to Sam's and buy a case of 'em, too.
3 posted on 05/04/2006 7:26:19 PM PDT by decal (My name is "decal" and I approve this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
"What we don't want is someone who unintentionally damages the fetus," Lieu [D] said Thursday on the Assembly floor.

I see.

4 posted on 05/04/2006 7:27:26 PM PDT by M203M4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
"What we don't want is someone who unintentionally damages the fetus,"

I imagine if you took the ultrasound and beat the fetus with it, it could damage the fetus....

5 posted on 05/04/2006 7:28:24 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

They certainly do not want crisis pregnance centers to have ultrasound machines. Don't let facts get in the way of feelings about "just some tissue".


6 posted on 05/04/2006 7:29:29 PM PDT by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Will this impact pro-life clinics who may use ultrasound introduce the mother to the baby?
7 posted on 05/04/2006 7:29:35 PM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M203M4

Or use it to show girls going into the abortion clinic what they are killing.


8 posted on 05/04/2006 7:30:12 PM PDT by okiecon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
"What we don't want is someone who unintentionally damages the fetus,"
9 posted on 05/04/2006 7:30:18 PM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M203M4

I thought this mutt was pro-choice.


10 posted on 05/04/2006 7:30:24 PM PDT by 359Henrie (We cannot deport 12 million can we? Si, se puede!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

I have seen a baby cringe when the licensed ultrasound tech scanned over its head, and the licensed ultrasound tech said nope, a fetus can't feel pain.

I bet Tom Cruise thinks a baby can feel pain.

This opens a can of worms- doctors and hospital administrators always say there is no risk, but now they admit that there is if the operator makes a mistake (license or no).

I see lawyers circling...


11 posted on 05/04/2006 7:30:39 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Ya, this is a big problem that the legislature needs to spend their time on...

What about baseball bats???
12 posted on 05/04/2006 7:30:54 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

"What we don't want is someone who unintentionally damages the fetus,"


Like Abortion?


13 posted on 05/04/2006 7:32:08 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper
Good point. Intentionally damaging it is okay...
14 posted on 05/04/2006 7:32:18 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: the_Watchman
Will this impact pro-life clinics who may use ultrasound introduce the mother to the baby?

Yes unless they hire a tech that is licensed by the state they wont be allowed to use them under this bill

15 posted on 05/04/2006 7:32:23 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

The real issue here is that ultrasounds are showing women that their three month old fetuses are not just a clump of cells. Therefore, the liberals are trying to bring ultrasounds under strict regulation. After this, they will ban using them before 6 months or so.


16 posted on 05/04/2006 7:32:47 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Calipornia always has to pass a law against anything "regressive." This has been true even when the RINOs dominated politics there.


17 posted on 05/04/2006 7:32:54 PM PDT by Clemenza (If you don't trust the government to buy your groceries, why trust it to educate your children?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

The real reason for this is the left's desperation to hide the true nature of a human fetus.


18 posted on 05/04/2006 7:33:41 PM PDT by Sloth (Archaeologists test for intelligent design all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_Watchman; freepatriot32

"Will this impact pro-life clinics who may use ultrasound introduce the
mother to the baby?"

You just beat my post.

IMHO, "the rest of the story" is that I suspect that the bill is
really aimed at shutting down ultrasound being used to help women
reach informed decisions about whether they wish to proceed with an
abortion or not.

Although it's for the directors of the pregnancy centers, here's a
link to "Focus On The Family"'s website for the ultrasound operation.

http://www.heartlink.org/oupdirectors.cfm

Now I could be all wet...maybe these centers get licensed personnel to
do the ultrasound...so I might have to eat crow.


19 posted on 05/04/2006 7:33:42 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Don't jump to any conclusions about the motives of the legislators. It's very possible that improper use of an ultrasound can harm a child. If so, this regulaiton is perfectly appropriate. I doubt anyone who's posted on this thread so far is qualified to judge the merits of the argument.
20 posted on 05/04/2006 7:34:27 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson