You could probably come up with some decent arguments against the legislation passed by the Virginia legislature, which would require women to receive ultrasounds before undergoing an abortion. Or, as Slate does, you could just descend into hysteria and wild-eyed fear-mongering:
I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law. …
The ethical and professional obligations of physicians who would merely like to perform their jobs without physically violating their own patients are, however, immaterial. Don’t even bother asking whether this law would have passed had it involved physically penetrating a man instead of a woman without consent. Next month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument about the obscene government overreach that is the individual mandate in President Obama’s health care law. Yet physical intrusion by government into the vagina of a pregnant woman is so urgently needed that the woman herself should be forced to pay for the privilege.
Comparing the ultrasound proposal to forcible rape is – to be kind – totally absurd. But Slate’s not the only outlet engaging in this. Feministe is calling it the “Virginia Rape Law,” and Washington Monthly described it as the “Ritual Humiliation Bill.”
Then there’s Joy Behar, who likened it to Taliban law on “The View”: “It’s like, what are we? What is this, the Taliban now? What are we, in Afghanistan? Where are we exactly in this country?”
The comparisons aren’t just needlessly inflammatory, they also dilute the seriousness of rape. And there’s also a case to be made that there’s a tangible medical benefit from the ultrasound, as Tim Griffin writes at Red State:
Although the discomfort of the test to women should not be in any way dismissed or downplayed, this really is an important step in allowing mothers to be informed of the ramifications of the choice that they make. Hundreds of thousands of American women struggle with Post Abortion Stress Syndrome. For those who advocate the rights of women, their responsibility should not only be on extending the “right to choose” before the procedure, but should extend to ensuring that these women do not have to endure a decision for the rest of their lives that they did not truly understand.
Pro-choice advocates say they’re not in favor of abortion, they’re in favor of giving women the option to have it. If that’s the case, they should support arming women with more information about a procedure that, at least under the law, is their right to have.
Update: Dan McLaughlin points out on Twitter that I credited the first piece to Salon, when it should actually be credited to Slate. Duly corrected, and apologies for any confusion.
If the women wish to have this procedure they should be allowed to have it. They should not be forced to have it. No state should require any invasive procedure. I thought conservatives were against government interference in people's private lives? n nAnd btw, who pays for these tests? The taxpayers? Shall we ask taxpayers if they wish to have their taxes raised in order to support these procedures? n nHow about if men who want viagra or any other performance enhancing drug should be required to take a nuclear stress test to see if they are healthy enough?
I guess I'm missing something here; my wife and I have had three kids – we had sonograms/ultrasounds all along the way. I've had ultrasound for other joint/pain issues. And NONE of them are 'invasive procedures' as you state, nor does it involve the "physical intrusion by government into the vagina of a pregnant woman" as stated by the Slate writer. Newsflash to liberals – an ultrasound of an unborn baby/fetus/whatever even you wish to call it, does not involve the *vagina*, as that is not where the baby/fetus is located, m'kay? And it's not 'intrusive', good grief.
MIdas2000 where exactly were your children located inside your wife? The baby grows in the uterus. The cervix connects the uterus and the vagina.. I am a conservative and I pray for your children. Especially if their existence didn't involve a vagina….
Yeah, if you want to MURDER YOUR BABY it is waaay too much to ask that you actually LOOK at what you're KILLING. You might have a point, except you DON'T.
Wow, look at the ignorant rednecks going nuts. At times like this I'm glad I live in Canada, where the government isn't constantly trying to reverse the women's rights movement. n nExternal ultrasounds are non-invasive. However, should a woman wish to abort a fetus at 5-8 weeks (which is when THE VAST MAJORITY OF ABORTIONS HAPPEN for obvious reasons), the fetus likely will not be visible on an external ultrasound, and a trans-vaginal ultrasound will be necessary. n nEssentially, this bill requires that a woman wait until LATER in her pregnancy before aborting if she wants to avoid having an ultrasound probe shoved up her vagina. A transvaginal ultrasound is a procedure that can leave a woman in pain for several days after the ultrasound is performed. n nAlso, this bullcrap about "Post Abortion Stress Syndrome" is just a justification for this government intrusion. It's not medically necessary to look at the fetus before having an abortion at 5 weeks; at that point, the abortion process involves taking a pill and waiting a few days. n nI'm absolutely baffled by the response of Midas2000. To suggest that transvaginal ultrasound is a fiction because the fetus is not located in the vagina? How do morons like you get out of bed in the morning without suffocating yourself in the blankets? n nKeith's response is typical hatemongering without viable reasoning or logic… doesn't surprise me in the least.
The concerns are legitimate. Section 18.2-67.2 of the Virginia Code makes "object sexual penetration" a crime – meaning, you can't stick a probe inside another person's genitals without permission. Obviously, this law is inconsistent with the state's current position that the government can mandate sticking an object inside another person without permission.
Actually let me clarify that last part: The government isn't trying to mandate sticking an object in a person's genitals without her permission – they're just trying to mandate sticking an object in a person's genitals as a condition to her exercise of her Constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy prior to viability.
What are you smoking? Ultrasound does *not* require probes, sticking things in people's genitals, etc. It's as if the left has suddenly exploded in mass delusional hysteria or something.
Do some research. "Transvaginal utrasound." Google it. n n
rubbing a wand on a belly is the same as shoving it up her vagina? Are you simple?
There are no “constitutional” rights in this country. Not a single one. The Declaration of Independence recognizes pre-existing rights from the Creator, those being Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The constitution or the Untied States of America is a document that shapes and governs the federal government. This government does not have the authority to extend or deny the pre-exsisting God given rights that all of us have at conception. Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton are not law, the supreme court does not have the constitutional authority to make law. Congress makes a bill, presidents sign those bills into law or veto, then congress can override the veto and pass the bill into law. Abortion is murder, not law.
Alana, would you want an ultrasound? No, you wouldn't. I f they're going to require ultrasounds for women – full rectal exams for men seeking viagra should be required.
Yes of course those two things are the same. Wanting an erection has always been tantamount to murdering a child, thanks for clearing that up,
A five week old fetus isn't remotely viable, and has an almost one in five chance of suffering a miscarriage anyway. And that's when the mother is young and healthy. It increases with age. No, if you were really concerned about children, you'd be advocating universal neonatal care and the elimination of poverty. But it's not about children at all, is it?
a vaginal ultrasound is too invasive, but an abortion is not. n nam I missing something here?
yes you are missing the entire point, because the woman chooses the abortion. The state does not make her have it.
She shouldn't be allowed to murder a child in the first place. Or in liberal stupid-speak, she should not be allowed to terminate the life of a POTENTIAL PERSON who, without a liberals bloodthirsty intervention, would grow to be born and otherwise be NOT DEAD.
Keith – you have a right to your opinion. But the law of the Unitied States – as decided in Roe v Wade is that a woman does have the right to get an abortion if she so chooses. If you don't like the law either petition your members of congress or go somewhere else. But do not be a terrorist and attack women who are engaged in lawful acts.
An abortion is a medical procedure a woman consents to. This law plainly and clearly forces vaginal penetration on a woman when it is not medically necessary, and her will or consent in the matter is irrelevant. You're missing that.
Ultrasound doesn't require vaginal penetration. You know this, right?
Midas2000 – Have you bothered to read the numerouse replies about trans-vagina ultasounds – or are you just playing dumb? My wife had to have one – I was there with her – I saw with my own eyes what was inserted into her vagina. Without her consent I would definitely call it rape!
Yes, the abortion is performed at the request of a woman exercising her rights. This vaginal probe is being inserted inside her body without her permission at the demand of the state.
Vaginal probe? Are all liberals stupid?
No – as Stephen Colbert says – reality has a well known liberal bias. Try to know something before you open your mouth. Yes – trans-vagina ultrasound has probe inserted into vagina. My wife had one. I was there. And if it had been without her consent I would definitely call it rape. Do you want the state telling a doctor to insert something into you, your family members,etc. THAT IS NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY?! Talk about invasive government. Keep government out of my bedroom and out of my wife's body (and mine too).
Oh, you want a cheeseburger? Sure, that's fine. But you have to buy this drink and these fries too, otherwise, no deal.
Yes, you are missing one very important requirement necessary for a medical procedure: Informed consent. A procedure is invasive if you do want, agree or consent to it. Medical doctors decide what is necessary to inform a patient of risks and benefits of a procedure, not GOP lawmakers who overstep their bounds…will be fighting this tooth and nail.
So the doctor decided what information the mother needs to have before she makes the INFORMED CONSENT kills her child? By the same token the doctor can decide what the patient needs to know before the INFORMED CONSENT for ANY surgery? n nThere are state laws, JHACO regulations, federal regulations that define what informed consent is and is not.
If the women wish to have this procedure they should be allowed to have it. They should not be forced to have it. No state should require any invasive procedure. I thought conservatives were against government interference in people's private lives? And btw, who is going to pay for these procedures, the taxpayers? Do you think people want to pay more taxes for this?
No we the tax payers should not pay for it. But we the tax payers should not pay for ANY abortions. Defund Abortion on demand known as planned parenthood.
Another "not meant to be a factual statement" by the religious right. Thank you Jon Kyl. Sorry, but the FACTUAL statement is no tax dollars are used for abortions. That is already the law. But don't let the facts get in the way of your spewing hatred.
No. You'd much rather pay to bomb brown people. You prefer to kill children that are OUT of the womb.
Wow…..
“Consent” is the key word. An “intrusive” procedure a woman consents to is different than one she does not consent to. Wake up. Women should not even be given the option of an ultrasound deemed “necessary” by anyone other than a medical professional. I cannot believe this country right now either. Yes, Alana, vaginally probing a woman (with any object) against her will is rape under the guise of help noone asked for. The dilution is occurring not in the term “rape” but in the concept of, and right to, bodily autonomy. The “ensuring” should not come in the form of a forced vaginal probe with zero medical grounds. This is not an issue of right to information which, by the way, does not require an unauthorized ultrasound to convey. It has to do with consent, just as for any other procedure, which has nothing to do with ethical impositions.
"Pro-choice advocates say they’re not in favor of abortion, they’re in favor of giving women the option to have it." n nThis choice bit of double-talk has always amused me. A so-called "pro-choice" advocate is not giving the pregnant woman anything, because she's already pregnant. SHE'S GOING TO HAVE THAT BABY (98% of the time anyway) unless an abortionist steps in and kills it. She need do nothing positive toward that end. For the fetus to eat, drink, and breathe, it's necessary only that the mother eat, drink, and breathe. The only choice is to kill it. The deceptive notion of choice upon which this murderous regime has been constructed is an Orwellian abuse of language.
Sorry, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you. We live in a country where the rule of law pervaeils – not the OPINION – or religious extremeists like you. Freedom of religion means I do NOT have to behave as your religion dictates – only as the law of the USA says I have to. If you want to live in a theocracy move to Iran.
This isn't even true from a medical standpoint. At best, the percentage is 85%, and it changes with age. So you start out with a made up statistic and run as if you're carrying the battle flag. Doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. What do facts matter?
According to the AMA, there is no Post Abortion Stress Syndrome. In my opinion, anyone who forces me to undergo the experience of having an object thrust into my vagina without my consent and for no medical reason is committing rape. This has nothing to do with women's health & everything to do with using a form of rape to coerce giving birth. This bill is trying to deny the stats of women as fully moral agents acting in their own best interests.
Is this the same AMA that, until recently, only tested drugs on men and completely ignored the side effects that they had on women? The same medical profession that – until a threatened riot at an APA convention — considered "homosexuality" to be a mental illness for which people should be forceably committed to a hospital against their will? n nFor that matter, what about the people put into the mental hospitals against their will and what happens to them there? If I am not mistaken, something very similar to this does — so how is this different? nOh yes — *this* is voluntary….. The invasive physical exam upon commitment is not. n n0h, and Paula, don't you have the ability to drive (or walk) across the bridge and have your abortion in DC? Or Maryland, or North Carolina, or Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia or Pennsylvania? That is the advantage of Federalism, if you don't like the medical care you get in one state, go to another — lots of folk go to Boston from all over New England. n nAnd if we are going to be so sensitive and such, why don't we explain in gristly detail, complete with graphics, what a D&C is. Don't you think women ought to know what they will endure with that? n0r is it better that she finds out later in the recovery room??? n
Ed you touch upon the WHOLE reason I support pro-choice. My sons asked me why – since we are Christians and go to church every Sunday. The full answer is complex, but the short answer is this – rich people could ALWAYS get a safe and legal abortion – porr people could not before Roe v Wade. Because rich people have the assets to drive, fly, etc. to where they can get one. Poor people cannot. Poor people cannot afford to take the many days off work for the travel to get where they can get a safe abortion – let alone pay for the travel. I do not think it is morally right for rich white men to condemn poor women to either have a child they do not want – possibly cannot afford – while they facilitate their own wifes, daughters, sisters, mistresses to get safe and legal abortions. This is hypocracy – and – in my opinion – immoral.
Thank you, Mark. I've long held this opinion myself.
The APA takes the position that any event that causes trauma can indeed result in PTSD. Is abortion a trauma? n nNevertheless, any event that causes trauma can indeed result in PTSD, and abortion is no exception. A woman can be of sound and solid mind when she makes a choice to terminate a pregnancy, but it is never an easy decision. Even when it is the right decision, there is sometimes a level of conflict that needs to be addressed so that the woman can be at peace with her choice. Believing that PASS exists does not mean that one does not believe in a woman’s right to choose; it simply means that one believes in supportive and constructive counseling around the trauma symptoms. n nSymptoms of PASS may include any of the following: n n Guilt: Experiencing guilt does not imply that you made a mistake or “violated your own moral code,” as some pro-lifers would imply. However, feelings around having an abortion may be complex and have to take into account fear of what others might think. n Anxiety: General anxiety is a common symptom of PTSD—in the case of PASS, there might be a particular anxiety over fertility issues and the ability to get pregnant again. n Numbness, Depression: Again, common symptoms of PTSD. n Flashbacks: Abortion is surgery, and in most cases, it’s surgery that happens while the patient is fully conscious. This can be a distressing experience. n Suicidal thoughts: In extreme cases, the PTSD that results from a controversial abortion could lead to suicidal thoughts or tendencies and would require immediate treatment. It’s important to note that this is not a common or expected symptom of PASS, but as with any form of PTSD, it is possible.
Is PASS in the DSM? I didn't think so.
Funny. I commented at the site @ two hours ago, noting that "PASS" is not recognized by the AMA, and was in fact created by failed engineer David Reardon as a political tool against women. I noted that shoving a device up my vagina for no medical purpose (solely in order to push a political agenda) is in fact state mandated rape. nMy language was more polite there, but they still haven't published my comment.Wonder what they're afraid of? The site is called Commentary, after all. Feh
Paula – you have stated it clearly now and I am reading it. I fail to understand why anyone with an average IQ could not at least understand what you have stated. I think some people are so blinded by what they want to believe that they cannot face the truth. As a man I could never have put it as focefully as you have. And as a man my OPINION is that I have no right to tell you what to do with your body (or FOCE you to have something inserted into it against your will). But clearly other men here think they do have that right. Lets hope the 21st Century catches up to everyone soon.
Whatever near-insane Progressives may say, it's not a question of whether women should be provided the information, but whether they should be coerced into obtaining the test. The state of Virginia has no business *requiring* it as a condition of obtaining a legal, elective procedure.
Both the test and the procedure are "legal' — with the same standing in law. nRead _Roe_ – actually READ it — and you will realize that it would have to be decided the other nway based on our medical knowledge. However, it does not establish a right to an abortion. n nBy contrast, the 2nd Amendment clearly says "right to keep and bear arms." n nBeen watching Annie of the Washington Times in her effort to get a gun? nThat is less invasive? How about the mandatory psych examinations that higher education nloves to force anyone who is different to go through. That is less invasive (NOT)!!!! n nHow about the examination that is SUPPOSED TO BE performed before a woman can be prescribed birth control pills? That is less invasive? Right….. n nAnd how about the standard prostate exam? Less invasive? nCouldn't *that* be called "rape" (or sodomy) under the Virginia Code?
Ed – don't know about your state – but my state does not FORCE me to get a prostate exam unless I concent to get one. BUT – if the State of Virginia forced me to get one to do something I am legally entitiled to do (free speech, assembly, purchase a gun, vote, etc.) then I would agree that would be rape. So let's think of it that way. The State now says you must have a colonoscopy in order to purchase a gun – so you can be FULLY informed whether you have colon cancer before you buy your gun. Now how do you feel about it?
I cried at my first pap. A woman's decision to obtain an abortion is a personal one. Why can't these fear-mongers focus on these? They don't. Just shame a woman in a medical setting by probing her in the vagina. It's not rape, it's medicine to save the babies! Garbage article. How about some actual fact checking like, PASS isn't recognized by the APA, or how there's no medical benefit?
Yeah terminating a living human being is a "choice" while having to consent to an ultrasound in order to kill that human is "rape". Abortion lovers had to invent a "right" to murder unborn children in the Constitution. Now they have to invent an entirely new definition of rape to circumvent the reality of what they are killing.
Sorry, but the FACT is that abortion is not legally murder by the laws of this great United States of America. That is the reality. Don't like it. Want to live in a country where abortion is illegal – please move to one of these: nAbortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life. nSouth America: nBrazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela, nSub-Saharan Africa: nAngola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, Cufffdte d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda. nMiddle East and North Africa: nAfghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen. nAsia and Pacific: nBangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka. nEurope: nIreland, Malta, Vatican City
A woman consents to an abortion. In V A, a woman doing so will be forced (without consent) to the painful intrusion of the US probe to satisfy the needs of the state to peer inside her vagina. It provides no medical benefit to the patient (the woman being violated). I wonder what brain trust decided that a woman who has to undergo that procedure in order to get an abortion (in effect, having earned it) will just say 'Oh, never mind'? Why do these zealots think women don't know they're aborting a fetus, sincce that's, you know, the DECISION they have already made? Why don't they see women as active moral agents, with all the rights to make their own decisions? This is paternalism in the extreme, and reveals volumes about the contempt for women VA legislators feel.
So just so we're absolutely clear: n nYou support a woman being able to have an abortionist probe (and more) her vagina to terminate the human life growing inside her. But you do not support an ultrasound beforehand which probes the very same vagina she intends to have probed later in order to take an image of said life. n nOr put another way: It's OK to probe (and more) her vagina once in order to terminate a human life, but it is impermissible form of rape to probe it beforehand to determine and inform her fully of what is in her uterus.
Umm, what is it about the words "without her consent" that you don't understand? She is consenting to the abortion. She is NOT consenting to an intrusion into her vagina (which VA law defines as rape) that is medically unnecessary and has been mandated by the state, which for all purposes, is to shame her. You need to take a logic class. A does not equal B.
An abortion in this case is in fact an intrusion into her vagina. I made this pretty simple. Btw. any idea she's not consenting is ludicrous. In every other real life medical scenario a doctor may have to locate and identify a problem before they can perform a surgical operation – and these methods have various levels of invasiveness. You sign the form to get Procedure X, you sign the form to do Preliminary Test A. n nThen again, abortion isn't medical care by any proper understanding. It's murderous quackery – which is why it has some of the lowest standards of any surgical procedure. The point is to take your cash, kill the child, and kick the woman back on to the curb to continue doing what got her pregnant in the first place. No time for all that Hippocratic Oath bullcrap, just get it over with. I have my career you know, I'm busy. n nWhy else would there be people seriously arguing a preliminary ultrasound is akin to a rape? In fairness I guess it's at least consistently offensive – pro-aborts are now arguing it's wrong to rape (even though transvaginal ultrasounds are not singularly mandated but hey, you're not operating on facts here you're operatic on hysterics and hyperbole) en route to what pro-lifers know is performing a murder. n nPro-aborts need to decide: Is this real medical care subject to the strict standards, rules, and guidelines attached to real medical procedures, or is this a boutique kind of quackery that should be done by any fly-by-nighter with immediate access to it taking primacy over fully informed, charted, diagrammed, and evaluated consent with a medical professional. n nI can think of no other procedure where the patient believes a preliminary procedure informing them of the risks and nature of the procedure is an exercise designed to shame them. Probably because people getting real medical care have actual illnesses that need addressing. It's not the ultrasound that's shameful here, it's the abortion. Women who want healthy babies get ultrasounds every day without any guilt at all. If abortion has no moral weight, it's impossible to shame someone about it.
"Pro-aborts need to decide: Is this real medical care subject to the strict standards, rules, and guidelines attached to real medical procedures, or is this a boutique kind of quackery that should be done by any fly-by-nighter …" n nAnd the other question is if we care enough about women's reproductive health enough to demand that surgery on wemen (and an abortion IS surgery) be held to the same demands of sanitation and safety that we — well, demand that surgery on men be held to. We would not let someone take out a guy's tonsils under the standards that most abortion clinics operate under — and both surgeries are essentially identical — entering via a body cavity to conduct an invasive surgical procedure. And as i understand it, an abortion is actually MORE risky because of the closeness of the colon. n n"Probably because people getting real medical care have actual illnesses that need addressing." n nI had a severe case of pneumonia back in the '90s — nearly fatal. Healthy guys in their 20's don't get that sick that fast usually and hence they presumed AIDS. And it HURTS to breathe/talk when you have pneumonia — I can't speak about an ultrasound probe in a vagina but I can speak to broken bones and this hurt worse. Every breath hurt worse. n nTry discussing your entire sexual history with a stranger when every syllable of every word you speak hurs worse than breaking a bone. And I am supposed to freak out over them making sure that these women actually have a fetus to abort???? n n
Please read carefully. The trans-vaginal ultrasound is being mandated by the State of Virginia – not by the doctor. No one is objecting if the doctor tells the woman he recommends the procedure and she consents. The objection is the politicians telling the woman she MUST have a procedure before she can exercise her lgal right to an abortion – whether or not is it medically recommended – and whether or not she consents. Easy to understand.
Painful intrusion of the US probe? Um… You are an idiot. It isn't painful. And is a heckuva lot less invasive (not to mention painful) than a D&C.
Robert, your version of when life begins is not everyone’s. Imposing your moral beliefs does not help your argument in favor of a law requiring a woman to forgo consent and submit to a government, not medically, mandated procedure. Paula, so true. When was it decided (by men) that women are incapable of making personal medical decisions? Are we children and not adults? This is inexcusable. Please find the time to view this from a medical standpoint. VA state senator, Ralph Northam, MD, gives a compelling statement against SB 484.
http://bit.ly/ynP4rN
Since when did biological fact have "versions"? n nThe question is not and never has been "when life begins." Obviously abortion kills a living human being, else no one would need to have one. You can't terminate an inanimate object. The question is a legalistic one over "when does your legal protection to life begin." Pro-lifers cannot see a reasonable position other than the one which assigns that protection for mere humanity. Pro-aborts shift between birth, viability, sentience, and many others that effectively open a Pandora's Box of consequences (whether euthanasia for the "unfit" is an "unintended" consequence is unlikely given Margaret Sanger's hand in the creation of Planned Parenthood.)
Life begins at conception. This is basic biology 101. Whether a person should be killed based on the viability of life is another matter. But it is coming, under Obamacare a panel of non-medical people will decide IF your medical procedure is cost effective. Look to the British NHS NICE panel for clarification.
If a man were forced to have a stick inserted in his behind as a condition for treatment of a sore throat would that be rape?
One last comment: n nWhat is with Pro-Choice women's absolute and complete misandry? Why do you absolutely, positively speak and write the worst things about "if men were affected blah blah blah." n nIf men were effected we'd probably by and large grow up and do the right thing: Protect our children with our sacred honor regardless of the cost to ourselves, just like men in the life of fire and in dangerous professions do every single day of their life. Legions of men have fought and died for you to have the freedom to assault their masculine character. n nMaybe you hate men because you've never respected them, and as a result they sensed your loathing and never gave you the time of day? Men don't have high emotional IQ's but we can sense anger, loathing, and hate. The only good thing about the feminist movement and the sexual devolution is that America will only have to deal with these barren misanthropes for a single generation – old age without the benefit of children to care for them in their sunset years will take care of the rest.
How about a swab up his penis? That is the requirement to receive treatment for one of the VDs (I forget which one) and a dry cotton swab would be beyond painful while this is just unpleasant. n nAnd as to sore throat, medical protocol is to take same cotton swab and rub the tonsils and the rest for a culture. That I have had done to me and it wasn't pleasant. So you want to talk about medicine being less invasive and particularly less uncomfortable in its invasiveness, fine — I am all for that. n nBut get your analogies right. Facts do matter. n nAnd we are not talking about "treatment" here, we are talking about SURGERY! There is a difference.
I thought an ultrasound was done on the belly. What’s all this about vaginal insertions?
So I guess requiring bloodwork before surgery is rape too…I mean I would not want to be an informed patient.
I read that ultrasound of either type, vaginal or external can't detect a fetus in the very early stages. Then as gestation progresses there's only 1 week that a vaginal ultrasound only can see it. After that it can be done externally.
Actually, the doctor would often need to perform an ultrasound (using a sensor on the outside of the abdomen before performing the abortion in order to locate the infant. Testimony has shown that the only difference is that they are required to show it to the mother before killing the baby.
And when you realize that a sharp object is involved, and that the child could be attached anywhere, and if you jab at the wrong part where the child isn't you go right through and through the wall of the large intestine and the woman dies of septic shock from fecal matter in her blood (which is how "coathanger" abortions killed women) — well, any woman who doesn't agree to the ultrasound is literally playing Russian Roulette. n nAnd if you can't find it with the external ultrasound, you had best find it some other way — one of the things I have heard is that women going for early abortions (where the vaginal ultrasound is needed) are often told to come back a month later when the fetus is easier to find. And regardless of ones position on abortion, think about this for a minute — an accurate ultrasound is necessary to FIND the fetus — now showing the video to the mother or not is something else, but you just blindly jab a sharp object into a woman, you stand a damn good chance of killing her. That is, I presume, a bad thing…..
A transvaginal ultrasound is necessary in the first couple of months of a pregnancy because an abdominal ultrasound will not reveal what the law requires be revealed to the patient. So, unless the abortion is later than two months gestation, a transvaginal ultrasound will be necessary to fulfill the law's requirements. Educate yourself.
One other thing — exactly where did Ms. Goodman say that she was in favor of this law? What she wrote was: n"[y]ou could probably come up with some decent arguments against the legislation passed by the Virginia legislature, which would require women to receive ultrasounds before undergoing an abortion." n nFolks, this is English Grammar 101 — she never said that *she* was in favor of the law. Read that sentence again — it essentially means that she thinks that there are some good arguments against the law. Look then at her next sentence (which technically is grammatically incorrect as you technically can't start a sentence with a conjunction although everyone does) — "[o]r, as Slate does, you could just descend into hysteria…." n nShe essentially sets up an "either/or" argument — either you could rationally oppose this law, or you could go do what these nut cases did. (NB — I am making a more extreme argument to illustrate a point.) n nImagine if she had written the second sentence like this: "But what some did was to ignore these rational arguments and instead descend into hysteria and irrational fear mongering. For example, Slate wrote…." n nI think it was Cathy Young who made the point (in her book _Ceasefire_) that rape is a particularly horrific crime and that expanding the definition of rape into lots of lesser things serves to diminish the horror and dilute the social revulsion towards the actual horrific act itself. There is a really big difference between an unpleasant/undesired/whatever medical procedure being appended to an elective surgical procedure and being jumped by some strange guy and being dragged into an alley via brute force. There is a really big difference here, people. n nI likely would have written the first paragraph a bit differently than Alana Goodman did, but then I have taught High School English Grammar and you haven't lived until you have 20+ wide-awake censors waiting to nail you for some mistake, real or imagined. My red pen would have come out for the semicolon with the tired teacher's catch-all of "AWK" — which essentially stands for "I am not really sure if this is grammatically correct or not, but perhaps you might want to put in the words you are saving with that colon." n nBut Ms. Goodman's point appears to be somewhat similar to the large one of Ms. Young — that the word "rape" should not be used in the context of opposing this law. I would like to see reasoned opposition to this point — are people arguing that this law's requirement is the same as being dragged out of your car and into a dark alley? n nRemember too that "rape" as a crime is only a "crime" because the Code of the Commonwealth of Virginia defines it as such — that statute could be repealed tomorrow, it never would be, but it could be. Hence you can't cite statutes as a reason why a statute can't be passed because all the legislature has to do is add the clause "notwithstanding …." and then the whatever doesn't count…. n nBut I still would like to see an answer to Ms. Goodman's argument….
There are almost no situations that require anything but an abdominal ultrasound because most clinics will not do surgical abortions prior to eight weeks anyway. I help run a pro-life clinic where we do ultrasounds every day free of charge next door to Planned parenthood and we do not ever do anything but an abdominal ultrasound, Ever. This is such a stupid misunderstanding. even as early as four weeks, a normal ultrasound on the abdomen works just fine.
It's not a "misunderstanding". It's an attempt by the state to coerce women away from exercising their right to health care.
It’s unfortunate that so few people on this thread are capable of discussing the article topic without drifting into their own personal rants about abortion and conception, and resorting to offending contests. Let’s discuss both sides of an issue (THE issue) calmly and with sound arguments. This is a bill requiring a pre-abortion transvaginal ultrasound without the patient’s consent. Are we able to produce a viable argument in favor of that? The suggestion that more accurately ensuring position of the fetus is a start, however, it is usually unnecessary and costly (ask an MD, not a layperson or legislator). This also should not be mandated by government, obviously. Doctors should be able to freely practice without big brother. Patients have a right to healthcare access, both men and women, without violation of bodily autonomy.
So government shouldn't regulate medicine? If I want to call myself a "Doctor" and start performing abortions myself, that is OK? n nHey, come to Doctor Ed, he will perform an abortion for a case of Bud Lite — just make sure that it is cold because he will down a few while doing the procedure on you. n nIs that what you want?!?!?!?!?!?!?
And Susanna — while I would never perform an abortion — I am from an offshore island — you would be amazed at what one can do when one has to do it. n nSo why am I not qualified to perform abortion? We have no other medical standards on them….
Ed- I am speaking for medicine practiced in the U.S. There are established medical standards, and physician practice is subject to state regulation through a licensing board. Anyone other than a licensed physician is not qualified, to say the least, to deem appropriate and require a medical procedure. State medical licensing laws delegate the definition of appropriate medical practice to medical schools, residency programs, and their private accreditation agencies. Things that physicians do to diagnose and treat illness are limited to licensed physicians who would serve time for accepting a case of beer and imbibing while practicing.
On that note, the TOPIC has veered tremendously and I will probably no longer engage in off topic discussion. Doesn’t seem to be anyone who can produce even a weak argument in favor of GOP government essentially claiming they can practice medicine. Please refer to Patients’ Bill of Rights if anyone is interested in knowing how SB 484 violates, under “Right to Autonomy and Self Determination” as well as Virginia’s code on “object sexual penetration” to check if rape only occurs in dark alleys. Mark, thanks for your intelligent input, though I recommend not wasting any more of your time when it appears most have not read the posts before posting..you can only repeat so many times.
What a immensely moronic ignoramus you are. What about the verifiably human life that's being ended. Can you comprehend the idea that murder should be illegal? You also don't know what the word "constitutional" means, another pathetic manifestation of your lack of intelligence.
Do you know what the word "verifiable" means? Everyone is entitle to their opinion, but not to their own set of so-cvalled "facts." Fact, Roe v Wade established the legal right to an abortion of women in America. Until that fact is changed, it is not "murder" as defined by the laws of our great country. Those are the facts. I can state the opinion that people like you with substandard IQs should be sterilized to strengthen our gene pool – but that does not make it "verifiable." It is only my opinion.