Comments on: Compulsory Ultrasound Audiences and Feminism

By: Shelley

Shelley — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:33:29 +0000

I dont understand why this is a political issue and not a private, personal, medical matter. Many OB-GYN’s use newer transvaginal ultrasounds because it give them better imaging of the entire reproductive system. One can opt not to. It just seems like if an MD prefers this to get better images, to know the positioning of the uterus (often tilted), know where the tiny fetus is exactly to minimize incomplete procedures or complication, that the discussion should be between the patient & Dr., and no one else. There is also the cases of women wanting to see the ultrasound even knowing she will not be keeping it for whatever reason. I don’t hold judgement on wanting to see or not see it, just want the government to stop making personal, medical decisions for people when they should instead focus on facilitating options, information, and good, available care to everyone.

By: Margaret Schwartz

Margaret Schwartz — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:44:42 +0000

Hey- I’m wondering about the indexicality of these kinds of images, and the emotional impact there? I know that women aren’t dumb (oh, wait, maybe I am??!! 🙂 but I feel like what the GOP is counting on here is the troubling encounter between image and the sensation of either being invaded by the wand of the trans-vaginal ultrasound, or the equally physical though less invasive experience of the jelly-on-the-belly ultrasound. I feel like rather than focusing on the poor image quality, I would suggest that where the GOP might get women (who are certainly not excited to “kill babies” or be viewed as “unmotherly” in a society that makes motherhood a valued asset even of stardom) is by the indexical “proof” that something is living inside them, even an alien, and were they to terminate, they would be killing it. Without this physical knowledge the decision to terminate may not be easier, but it won’t involve having to look your victim in the eye.

By: Christine Becker

Christine Becker — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:59:45 +0000

According to this article http://timesdaily.com/stories/Ultrasounds-before-abortions,187883, Alabama has a similar bill in the works, and the chairman of the committee that approved it (who, by the way, owns a company that sells ultrasound machines) says he thinks the bill is needed because it will help “a mother to understand that a live baby is inside her body.” The women don’t have to look at the ultrasound images, but the doctor has to describe them to her. (?!) And this, on the bill’s sponsor: “Scofield said he hopes that, if signed into law, his bill will stop some abortions. Though the bill states a woman can look away from the ultrasound image, Scofield wants her to see it.“So she sees that this is not just a clump of cells as she is told,” he said. “She will see the shape of the infant. And hopefully, she will choose to keep the child.””

By: Kyra Hunting

Kyra Hunting — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:28:42 +0000

That point makes a lot of sense to me Jonathan and actually brings in another point that I think nicely intersects with your audience. The issue, largely neglected in the bill, of viewing context and the impact of the ultrasound image provider. When a hospital, erroneously, feared I had an eptopic pregnancy they automatically turned the screen away and turned off ye heartbeat sound without me asking. In their own, slightly paternalistic, way that had established a set of viewing and non viewing contexts that were based on their own audience assumptions. This emphasis on context may in the end lead to a fair amount of non viewing but also may support your larger point.

By: Jonathan Gray

Jonathan Gray — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:38:12 +0000

But all too often, Kyra, you can’t separate the image and the procedure. Ultrasounds rooms have a screen poised right above the bed for the woman to see. And there’s an aural aspect here, too, as the heartbeat is turned on automatically. These are things a woman would need to opt out of quite actively — certainly, my wife and I were never asked if we wanted the screen on or the heartbeat on, as it was simply put on. So I think there’s still an assumption of audiencehood, even if it can be resisted through knowing what to ask for.

By: Kyra Hunting

Kyra Hunting — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:37:09 +0000

I think Jonathan’s analysis of how women are assumed to behave as audience is really interesting and likely right, although clearly disconnected from how many women actually behave. However, the bill oddly seems to align with Jason’s understanding of things a bit better because it does not actually require the woman to LOOK at the ultrasound, or hear the fetal heartbeat, only to undergo the procedure. I can’t speak for all women everywhere but I can’t imagine that I would take the option to look at the image or hear the heartbeat if I had decided to have an abortion. I have had female friends who are on the fence who have elected to do both as part of their decision making process, since the ultrasound is almost always available as an option. Given the many women who can just scrape up enough money to do the procedure making them pay for this as well is a very practical roadblock to an abortion, as is the 24 hour waiting period attached to it given many womens inflexible work schedules and sometimes overbooked abortion providers. The fact that at the end of the day the bill requires that the image be made available but not consumed is particularly interesting to me. Instead we have a situation in which women’s bodies are forcibly recruited into producing a form of media that they do not want and likely will not consume, I am not sure what the media frame is for that.

By: Jonathan Gray

Jonathan Gray — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:35:15 +0000

I’m sure you’re right about the desire to make it harder. But this specific method still relies upon an assumption that women are dolt audiences and/or likely to react affectively to the image (even if those behind the bill don’t really believe in that, as you say). Imagine, for instance, if men were required to look at medical imaging of their sperm before getting a vasectomy.

By: Jason Mittell

Jason Mittell — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:46:12 +0000

You might be giving the GOP more credit for actually thinking about the media effects of seeing such images. To me, it seems like another in a string of policies that try to make abortions harder for women to obtain – more expensive, more time-consuming, more moments of decision-making, and more opportunities for feel that health care workers are judging you. I don’t think they really imagine that a pregnant woman looking for an abortion will have a true change of heart by falling in love with the ultrasound (although that might work as a rationalization for the bill), but that by making the process harder, more pathologized, and more shame-inducing, women will stick to what seems easier in the short term by having the baby. I think the way they most undercut these imagined women’s psychology is not through media effects, but by assuming that getting an abortion is an “easy” decision for anyone to make.