A disturbing new trend in the fight of the baby killers is developing. The tools are the FDA and regulations regarding medical use of ultrasound equipment. The instigators are various abortion groups and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM).
The AIUM has been provoking the FDA into investigating and shutting down so-called Fetal Foto Boutiques. These are places where pregnant women can go to get 3-D and 4-D pictures and videos of their unborn child in special frames and keepsake ornaments. Some of these baby photo studios have been reported to use the ultrasound machines on higher energy exposures for as long as an hour to get the pictures. Although nothing has ever been proven, this is potentially harmful to the child and should not be practiced.
The official stance of the AIUM regarding the use of ultrasound technology is thus:
The AIUM advocates the responsible use of diagnostic ultrasound. The AIUM strongly discourages the non-medical use of ultrasound for psychosocial or entertainment purposes. The use of either 2-dimensional (2D) or 3-dimensional (3D) ultrasound to only view the fetus, obtain a picture of the fetus or determine the fetal gender without a medical indication is inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice.Everyone can agree that it is probably bad to have long-exposure high-energy ultrasounds on little babies, right? Isn’t it great that we have an agency like the FDA to protect us from those who would put us in harm’s way for a profit? No one really likes those cutesy strip-mall boutiques anyway, right?
Ahhhh, that’s what the baby killers would like you to think. Under the cover of “consumer protection” they move to restrict access to the truth about abortion.
You see, the key word in the AIUM’s statement is psychosocial. According to these experts, use of the ultrasound purely for informational or educational purposes – even if used correctly and under the supervision of a physician – is inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice. This means that the official stance of the organization is that ultrasound machines may not be used in crisis pregnancy centers. The statement effectively moves the caring practice of the physicians at these centers outside the realm of acceptable medicine.
Before you think I am reading too much into this, here is a quote from a recent president of the AIUM, the very active L.A. doctor Lawrence Platt. Dr. Platt was interviewed by NPR recently and was asked about how the FDA’s new aggressive stance should apply to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. He said,
"I think that to use the equipment in this way is similarly a misuse of technology. To provide information is certainly appropriate, but to use it to sway one’s decision and impact someone’s rights, I think, is the wrong way to use this technology."Apparently, Dr. Platt believes that if you have a "right", then you must immediately exercise it without discretion or evaluation of evidence. There also seems to be the idea that the purpose of a medical faculty is to suppress all information that runs contrary to his private non-medically informed sociopolitical vision. Generally, people believe that medical associations are about organizing and presenting medical facts. In reality, they are political institutions bent on achieving their own ends. The effects of sin cannot be regulated though extensive education. Doctors, as much as anyone, are corrupted by sin and may skew advice for selfish ambition. There is no true objectivity.
The most obvious factual statement is that abortion is always more harmful to a baby fetus than any level of ultrasound. This is so obvious that we should not assume that Dr. Platt and others like him at the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine do not recognize it. This medical body has taken a political stand in favor of those who would promote violence against unborn children and actively work to suppress the efforts of those who have a different point of view. The culture war touches every soul and every organization is affected. If you know someone who belongs to the AIUM, encourage them to take a stand against the leadership that seeks to kill children – and remove psychosocial from the official position statement.
Posted by Blandus at May 19, 2004 09:39 AMAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!
(I am yelling about NPR.)
Madness.
Posted by: Jake Allen at May 19, 2004 11:11 PMIt is all very sad.
Posted by: Blandus at May 20, 2004 12:17 AMDid Dr. Platt mention in the NPR interview whether or not he thought the Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC) employed physicians to review ultrasounds (or at least some appropriatly trained medical professional)? Or did the NPR interviewer imply that the people at CPC that provide ultrasounds are not trained any better trained than the ones providing trinkets at the mall?
Posted by: dtmiller at May 20, 2004 01:39 AMThey absolutely covered up the fact that the major Pro-Life organizations provide guidelines for setting up ultrasound services at crisis pregnancy centers that meet FDA requirements. NPR equated the level of technical expertise of CPC volunteers (all of whom I personally know are nurses or registered ultrasound techs) with the keepsake photo workers.
In fact, Dr. Platt went on to say that it is dangerous for "these people" to provide ultrasounds because they "may not have the expertise" to handle the situation if anything is discovered to be wrong with the child. He did not specify, but he would apparently not object to ultrasounds being used in abortion mills where they have "the ability to handle the situation."
Posted by: Blandus at May 20, 2004 09:10 AMI listened to the interview and it does sound like NPR is equating the level of professionalism displayed at a CPC with as that displayed by those doing fetal pictures for profit. However, I don't think Dr. Platt (or the AIUM) is a villain in this story. He may be misinformed as to the nature of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC) but he not promoting baby killing. Dr. Platt's concern with such use of ultrasound is that he has seen cases where an abnormality has shown up in the ultrasound and the person (at the mall photo booth) was not trained to convey such information to expecting parents. A mall photo booth is a horrible place to discover that a much rejoiced child could have a serious medical problem. When he said "I am not sure in that setting they are really prepared, as we are in the medical setting, to handle situations where there is something found at the time of the examination. It is our responsibility to deal with these patients in totality, not just for the pretty picture part of it." I do believe the royal "we" is in reference to Obstetricians and their support staff. I don't think the "we" was intended to include abortion providers.
Posted by: dtmiller at May 20, 2004 02:13 PMD - I agree with you that the mall is the wrong place to find abnormalities. I am against the mall thing in almost every way.
I also agree that Platt was very likely specifically referring to the keepsake video places in the second comment (which you seem to have transcribed for us).
I disagree as to the villainous status of Platt and others like him at the AIUM. The word psychosocial is in their policy statement for a reason. That reason was explained by Dr. Platt as being a protection against pro-life people attempting to change the minds of women considering abortion for themselves.
The AIUM has elected to support the baby killing side of the Abortion debate and actively work against pro-life supporters by the careful crafting of their "official stance" on a medical issue to support political aims. They have chosen the Dark Side. They are the bad guys. Their influence in the FDA is demonstrated by the restatement of the AIUM policy statement in an official publication of the FDA. This is cause for much concern.
Posted by: Blandus at May 21, 2004 03:23 PMSeems like a bit of a reach, the first thought in my mind was not that "psychosocial" cuts both ways:
If I open Bob's World o' Abortion and offer free ultra sounds for parents to see if their child has "defects", the AIUM wouldn't like it, even if I hired Radiologists to run the scanner. I'd venture a guess that as far as selling very late term abortions, it wouldn't be a bad marketing gimmick.
I'd venture to guess that the number of abortions prevented by ultrasounds is pretty small, at least within an order of magnitude of the number caused by parents seeing various defects on ultrasounds or via other tests.
Personally, I'd just assume that the FDA stepped in and asked that ultrasounds be regulated similar to x-ray machines. If, as you say, the anti-abortion clinics have trained staff, this wouldn't be a problem from your perspective.
To be honest, when I read the AIUM statement the first thing that came to mind was that they were trying to prevent gender selection. Since there are other things that fall under psychosocial, you're really stretching to turn that one line into a black and white pro-abortion stance.
Posted by: Bob at May 21, 2004 09:54 PMBob, Bob, Bob - good to hear from you again, but you've forgotten much of the content of our previous conversations.
It does not matter if you or I think that the regulations would most naturally apply to both abortionists and non-abortionists. All that matters is four judges' idea of how they apply. Various Courts Supreme have been making more and more newsworthy decisions as they reinvent and reword previously defined statutes in novel and creative ways. They need only the flimsiest of reasons for declaring their private points of view as the Rule of Law and Position of the State. The AIUM statement (utilized by the FDA) more than provides for them.
The connection between the AIUM statement and pro-life clinics is no stretch whatsoever. It is not even "my" connection. A well-connected man speaking as a representative of the AIUM (and the ultrasound industry in general) stated that to use the technology "to sway one's decision and impact someone's rights" is wrong. He made this statement in the context of how the FDA should apply the regulations to "anti-abortion clinics."
Here in my town, the crisis pregnancy center reports a 30% increase in the number of women who carry their baby to term after viewing a 4D ultrasound in their clinic. I don't know what the rate was before, or how many women they see a month - but a 30% increase in the first months of the new technology is something I am encouraged about pursuing. Some clinics report overall full terms rates of 60% since adopting ultrasound technology. I don't know of a nation wide study, but the anacdotal evidence runs counter to the purposes of the pro-abortion lobby. Large numbers of women choosing life is bad for their vision.
The connection is already made. The stage is set. Abortion forces will use these regulations against pro-life workers unless they are stopped.
Posted by: Blandus at May 22, 2004 01:51 AM