- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Health
Is a Proposed Virginia Ultrasound Law Actually State-Sponsored Rape?
Earlier this month in Virginia, a proposed bill requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before they can receive an abortion passed the state senate and recently cleared a state house committee.
However, the bill will force most women to undergo an invasive procedure of vaginal penetration by a foreign object, which some critics are calling state-sponsored rape.
Dahlia Lithwick writes on Slate.com:
Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.
Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason.
I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.
As an unnamed lawmaker told a fellow Virginia delegate, a woman already consented to being “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.”
UPDATE: On her St. Louis radio show, Dana Loesch slammed "progressives" and compared a trans-vaginal ultrasound with a foreign object to normal "sexual intercourse."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Holy crap! Do any of you
Holy crap! Do any of you actually understand the purpose of a vaginal ultrasound prior to an abortion? It's because prior to a certain point in the pregnancy an abdominal ultrasound will not confirm pregnancy. After that point an abdominal ultrasound will do just fine. Do we really want a woman to undergo an abortion procedure if she isn't pregnant?
Wow, you all are focused on this so much you forget that she is there to HAVE AN ABORTION. She is going to get something put in that area anyway and it won't be pleasant. You do know how an abortion is performed, right?
- The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.-
Rape: is a type of sexual
Rape: is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.
The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent.
The State would be committing rape by color of authority. The insertion of the probe into a women's vagina is the definition of rape.
Chuck
It is rape! Just like
It is rape! Just like abortion is state supported murder.
And your a fool.
And your a fool.
Chuck
State-supported murder? Only
State-supported murder? Only in the opinion of the religious reich that want to force their sick, twisted views on everyone else.
Forcing a woman to expose her
Forcing a woman to expose her private parts let alone to be invaded is absolutely rape. I'm sick of debasing unoriginal lines such as "She should've kept her legs closed. if use didn't want to become pregnant." It isn't as simple as that. Sex isn't cynical for some rather it's an exchange between two people who love each other. Contraception isn't foolproof. Zygotes and blastocysts don't have rights. They don't even have minds.
I simply must take issue with
I simply must take issue with Cloak N. Dagr's alleged statistics! You show us the professional, peer-reviewed research that shows what you are claiming, or you have lost all credibility. As Mark Twain was fond of reminding us: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics!"
@med-ethx22: It fits the very
@med-ethx22: It fits the very definition of rape by color of authority.
The World Health Organization defined rape in 2002 as "physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object".
Chuck
Or as my father told me,
Or as my father told me, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
It's nothing short of
It's nothing short of state-sponsored rape. Forcing a woman to undergo an invasive, intimate procedure such as this against her will is rape, plain and simple. It's just another smoke screen for anti-choicers to restrict access to safe, legal abortions.
As I've always said, the anti-choice stance is rooted purely in religion. There are no secular reasons against legalized abortion. Period, end of story.
What I don't understand is
What I don't understand is why the republican party continues to push divisive legislation!! God. Guns. Abortion. Religion. The republican party is nothing but a bunch of old white men, continuing to push their 1800's ways off onto women, but wouldn't tolerate it if women were in charge of men's bodies.
WHY AREN'T THE REPUBLICANS FOCUSED ON SOMETHING NON-DIVISIVE? WHY DO REPUBLICANS ALWAYS FOCUS ON THINGS THAT EXTREMELY DIVISIVE? WHAT NEW AND INNOVATIVE THINGS HAS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY COME UP WITH?
WHY DO REPUBLICANS SAY THEY WANT GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES AND THEN TURNAROUND AND BRING UP THIS CONTROVERSIAL PROCEDURE THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT INTO OUR LIVES?
CAN YOU ALL SAY SANCTIMONIOUS TWO-FACED HYPOCRITES?????????
What do guns have to do with
What do guns have to do with it? People have the right to honor their instinctual need to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property. I'm not a white male.
The short answer: yes.
The short answer: yes.
Unreasonable barriers to
Unreasonable barriers to abortion have been struck down repeatedly in the court system.
This is destined for a court challenge. It is likely to be overturned.
Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, a woman's right to abortion is the law of the land.
Odd, I have a friend that had
Odd, I have a friend that had an Abortion.
Planned Parenthood did that procedure twice, because they had to make sure she actually was pregnant before they could do the abortion.
This was a few years ago in Virginia.
If they have to do one anyway what's the issue?
Considering that an abortion
Considering that an abortion IS a trans-vaginal penetration for no medical reason related to maintaining or improving the health of the patient and IF they opt for the ELECTIVE procedure of abortion the State of Virginia should just make consent automatic. There is still a way to avoid ANY trans-vaginal penetration at all ... Don't have an abortion.
It seems a bit silly and hypocritical to say that a uterine aspiration or a dilation and evacuation (abortion procedures) are NOT invasively trans-vaginal but an ultrasound probe is. This is just hype no matter how you look at it or which side you're on. In one case 3 things go in there during the procedure and in the other case 2 things are inserted. If the person opts for the abortion these insertions will all happen within mere minutes of each other, if not then only one will happen, the ultrasound.
There is nothing medically or morally ambiguous about the ultrasound requirement because IF that requirement is objectionable even more objectionable is that healthy benign tissue (the embryo) is going to be sucked out or scraped away for no other reason than "I don't like it". If you want the abortion you can put up with the ultrasound and STFU about it.
In fact, the ultrasound adds another level of safety to the procedure because if there's anything abnormal in there it may be discovered during the ultrasound. Despite all the baloney about these procedures being "safe" women still die from them so a little more safety can't hurt a thing. In fact, they should do both a before and an after ultrasound to try to catch damage and bleeding that might not otherwise be apparent until it's too late.
Cloaked Tyranny - RU486 isn't
Cloaked Tyranny - RU486 isn't vaginally invasive. This conversation is offensive. We own ourselves and should stay out of other people's business. Dividing cells aren't people. We end life support for brain dead people. Remember that.
There is a medical reason
There is a medical reason related to maintaining and improving the health of the patient. Pregnancy severely affects a woman. There are many possible failures that occur during pregnancy and saying that there is NO MEDICAL REASON for abortion is ridiculous.
Everything I do, I do it for you.
Well gee, I guess it's a good
Well gee, I guess it's a good thing I didn't say that then, isn't it? I said ELECTIVE abortion. Can you see the word "ELECTIVE" up there in the very FIRST FREAKIN' SENTENCE of my comment? Or are you BLIND? I said abortion "because I don't like it (the baby growing in the womb)" BUT I NEVER SAID THERE WAS NEVER A REASON FOR AN ABORTION. Obviously if the pregnancy is going to kill the mother that's not what we're talking about here, is it genius?
See, this is how you abortion fanatics deal with these issues, you see ANYTHING negative and you try to spin it. That just shows how far beyond reasonable you are and why no one should listen to your silly asses.
The ultrasound requirement is
The ultrasound requirement is clearly meant to discourage abortions by creating a barrier to having the procedure done. The thought is that if the woman electing to have an abortion sees images of the fetus she is about to abort, she might have a change of heart.
This will end up in the courts, and the law will be tossed out because it not a reasonable condition for having an abortion.
The "right" way to outlaw abortions is to amend the constitution. Even conservative courts have upheld Roe v. Wade, and most restrictions on abortion have failed constitutional muster.
I am actually personally pro-life, but I am not willing to impose this view on someone else. You, however, seem perfectly willing to do so.
This law will end up as a waste of money for the people of Virginia. NARAL or some other organization will take Virginia to court, and this law will die.
Quoting CRW- "... I am not
Quoting CRW- "... I am not willing to impose this view on someone else. You, however, seem perfectly willing to do so."
Of course I'm "perfectly willing to do so" because as far as I'm concerned we have no way of knowing how many Einsteins, Newtons, Abe Lincolns and Thomas Jeffersons have ended up in a dumpster because as a fetus they were inconvenient.
Of course I'm "perfectly willing to do so" because people use abortions as birth control. There is a perfectly reasonable and safe alternative to abortion, it's 2012 and we KNOW what gets women pregnant now so the solution is to NOT get pregnant in the first place. Yes, I'm aware that NO contraceptive measure is 100% reliable over the span of fertility of any given female BUT I'm also well aware that the abortion rate in this country alone FAR EXCEEDS the statistical probabilities of a contraceptive anomaly. Ipso Facto there are a HELL of a lot more abortions than there need to be.
Hell yes I want any potential abortion patient to see what it is they're killing, that is NOT irresponsible to expect, just the exact opposite. I want them to see and know every possible ramification and consequence before they actually have the procedure performed on themselves. If they have to be made to understand ALL of what they're actually doing instead of being all detached and clinical about it then their decision will be MORE informed not less.
Your opinion of the law is irrelevant, it hasn't been tested yet so you have NO FREAKIN' IDEA if it will stand or fall. There are certainly valid arguments on BOTH sides of the legal issue but I notice you only present ONE side. So I doubt that you're "actually personally pro-life" at all, because you're NOT arguing the issue and you're NOT helping anything.
47% of all abortions result in some type of physical complication
6% have resulted in total hysterectomies
6% reported cervical cancer
8% had blocked fallopian tubes
9% had infections
8% had cervical incompetence
15% had post-operative hemorrhage
22% miscarried a later wanted child
(some reported more than one complication)
Gee, that looks a LOT more risky than we're being told by the pro-abortion crowd. Anything that reduces those statistics by reducing the ELECTIVE procedure responsible for them is a GOOD thing AND will have sound legal rationale behind it. Sure, pregnancy has it's medical risks too, but that just brings us back to not getting pregnant if being pregnant isn't a good idea for that particular woman. Which then obviates the need for an abortion and solves the problem before it ever becomes one.
I just love these idiots that say "but it's a LEGAL procedure" or like you that claim there is no way this law will stand. Here's a news flash for you, if it's LEGAL then the LAW defines the parameters under which it IS LEGAL. It's not LEGAL to shoot your neighbor, unless he's broken into your house at night standing in his underwear menacing your family with a weapon, then it IS LEGAL. There are parameters that make a certain act legal or illegal, there are requirements of the law that delineate those parameters. (I'm not comparing self defense to abortion so save your time and effort trying to make that an issue, I'm explaining that the law can determine what situations are legal and illegal.) There are most certainly parameters where abortion is NOT LEGAL, this law simply modifies a parameter under which the LAW will permit this procedure. Thus it's "legal standing" is far from in danger of being struck down no matter what arm chair legal scholars claim. Nice of you to render us your legal opinion but it's worthless and defeatist nonetheless.
If you actually have a point to make then do so, but spare us all the "this is a done deal legally so we might as well all throw up our hands and give up" bullshit. Your claim to being "pro-life" is laughable with that attitude. Either you're not pro-life at all or you might as well not be with an ignorant attitude like that. There are lots of good reasons, sound legal reasons, for a law like this, it just happens that this time the religious people are right. People are making this a religious issue both to support and attack it but there's a lot more to the story than the religious aspects.
So you can take your legal opinion and rotate it between your keyboard and the place the sun never shines.
@Cloak You really don't know
@Cloak
You really don't know any history. There have been five cases to challenge Roe v. Wade, and all have been shot down. The test for the constitutionality of any law regulating abortion is the clause "undue burden." Things like the partial birth abortion ban have been upheld, but things like spousal notification have not passed muster. Requiring an ultrasound when there are medically legitimate ways of determining pregnancy represents an undue burden.
The legal standing of abortion is not going to change unless the constitution is amended. If you feel so strongly, please start a pro-life amendment and see how far it gets.
You could spend a few minutes on FindLaw or Wikipedia reading case summaries before you pop off with a pile of nonsense.
With respect to being personally pro-life, my wife and I have never ever discussed abortion when she was pregnant. This is what it means to be personally pro life in case you were unclear. In a perfect world, all pregnancies would be planned and every baby would be wanted by the woman carrying the fetus. Reality is this perfect state is unlikely ever to occur.
The stats you are posting are standard pro-life exaggerations. Recent studies have shown that women stand a much greater risk of dying or suffering long term health issue by bringing a baby to term than by having an abortion.
"According to the study, published in the February 2012 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the risk of death associated with a full-term pregnancy and delivery is 8.8 deaths per 100,000, while the risk of death linked to legal abortion is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 women"
Additional details in the study show significantly fewer complications related to abortion than live birth.
I think your moral stance on abortion is something you are fully entitled to act upon. However, trying to use fake statistics to show that abortion is more dangerous will only weaken your case.
So... your facts are crap and your understanding of the legal system is crap, so I think you response is just crap too.
Start a grass roots effort to amend the constitution or stop your pointless bitching.
You are skewing everything I
You are skewing everything I said ...
1. I never said anything about challenging Roe v. Wade. This is about a simple freakin' ultrasound NOT overturning Roe v. Wade.
2. Requiring an ultrasound has not been legally determined to be an undue burden. So that's still to be determined. The law is still up in the air on that, it's going to stay up in the air until it's been finally determined, which it has not. You jump back and forth between outlawing abortion and the legal ramifications of an ultrasound as though they were the same thing. They're not. The fact that you know that full well is telling.
3. "...Recent studies have shown that women stand a much greater risk of dying or suffering long term health issue by bringing a baby to term than by having an abortion." AND "...Additional details in the study show significantly fewer complications related to abortion than live birth."
Which is why I said that there are alternatives to abortion including NOT getting pregnant in the first place. I'm not saying people shouldn't fuck, I'm not saying that they shouldn't use contraceptives, I'm not even saying that no one should ever have an abortion. I'm saying that they shouldn't use abortion as a means of birth control when there are better means that do NOT include surgically sucking or scraping living healthy tissue out of people.
All of which renders irrelevant anything you have to say on the risk factors of full term pregnancy vs. abortion. My point is NOT pregnancy vs. abortion, my point is pregnancy vs. non-pregnancy. I'm sorry but you'll have to look elsewhere if you want a foil for that argument.
I think your immoral stance on promoting a system of birth control that is detrimental to everyone involved is cretinous. I think YOU know full well that fake statistics are being promulgated on both sides of the issue. If the doctor that gives the botched abortion is ALSO the doctor that signs the death certificate there's NO WAY he's going to admit it was his fault. To do so would be professional and financial suicide so there is PLENTY of reason(s) to suspect the statistics provided on both sides of this issue.
You call the stats I post "exaggerations" and counter with "recent studies" which is every bit as vague and suspect. I don't really care at the end of the day because I'll be glad to split the difference and even so the stats are appalling IF you do a statistical analysis. There are documented cases where, say, Los Angeles County REPORTED three deaths due to abortion complications in a single month where a SINGLE doctor knew of more than three in that same month. Sort of makes you wonder what the other several tens of thousands of doctors in Los Angele County might know if you could only ask them. Don't talk to me about how freakin' accurate "recent studies" are, the truth is we just don't know. If you were as honest and erudite on this topic as you claim to be then you'd have to admit that.
Start donating your hard earned money to NARVAL so you can support their resistance to this ultrasound stuff and we'll see where the chips fall. But it is definitely not the legal "done deal" you make it out to be.
Read what I posted... it is a
Read what I posted... it is a medical journal. Go google it yourself.
Being morally opposed to abortion is one thing. Saying it is more dangerous than full term pregnancy is a lie.
"...Read what I posted... it
"...Read what I posted... it is a medical journal. Go google it yourself."
What you posted has exactly as much credibility as what I posted, neither of us posted a reputable source. You're way out of that inconvenient fact was to make a vague claim about a medical journal and say "Go google it yourself. (sic)". I went and found information based on scientific research and you blew it off. OK, well I'm blowing off your supposed "medical journal" too. You claiming it comes from a medical journal means nothing, indeed and for the reasons I just stated, even IF it came from a medical journal doesn't necessarily mean it's true. However, I DO encourage people to go "Google it themselves", I "Googled" the phrase "abortion related deaths" and YOUR supposed "medical journal", whatever it may be, doesn't show up on the first page of hits. What's really funny is that a LOT of information about how abortion related deaths are being misreported and under-reported DOES show up on that first page of hits. I really hope a LOT of people go "Google this themselves", so go Google it yourself. I'll even help you and anyone else that's interested ...
Copy and paste:
"Abortion related deaths"
Into Google, with the quotation marks and all. Tell me which one of those hits is your "medical journal". There's my authoritative source, let's see yours. I'm not even providing a link to a website that may or may not be reliable (or even safe for people's computers), I'm just telling you and everyone else how to find the information I'm citing so they can judge for themselves.
Go ahead and tell me why that's not a good idea.
"...Being morally opposed to abortion is one thing. Saying it is more dangerous than full term pregnancy is a lie."
I guess it's a good thing I didn't say that then. YOU are the one who brought that up, NOT me. YOU brought it up and then hammered on it like it was me who said it, and I didn't say that. YOU do that so that you can try to put words in my mouth which you can then condemn me for. Nice try at employing a sneaky underhanded tactic though.
How nice that in your
How nice that in your arrogance, you know you are entitled to tell others how to live their lives. Whether they share your views isn't important. It doesn't even matter if you are right or not. "Just do as I say and STFU"
It's smug morons like you that have made the world such a horrible place in so many ways.
Put your opinion where it belongs. As you said, where the sun never shines.
You're just a cheerleader
You're just a cheerleader James Smith. And being just a cheerleader you are worth exactly the amount of effort it takes to tell you that and no more. You did get one thing right though. You ought to STFU.
Yep, you're an arrogant POS.
Yep, you're an arrogant POS. Tell you what. you want me to STFU, I'll pay your way here so you can tell me to my face. It's pretty easy to talk tough when you are safely hidden behind a fake ID and your keyboard. It's a much different thing when you're face to face.
Lol, you're funny. First of
Lol, you're funny.
First of all, WE out here in the world have no way to know if that's your real name and picture or not. I could put up a picture that I copied from someone else's Facebook page and use a fictitious name and you'd never know the difference. It works the same way in reverse, but being as you're an idiot I don't suppose you thought of that.
And because I told you to STFU (because you're an idiot) you go all ballistic and belligerent and threaten me on the internet, which is a crime James Smith. Further proof that you're an idiot.
As if we needed more proof that you're an idiot, you know damn well that I'm not going to come and see you so you can find out that you aren't as tough as you'd like to have everyone believe. That's not going to happen any more than YOU will come here to learn the same lesson. That was a REALLY stupid thing to say and yes, you're an idiot for saying it.
If you're putting your real name and pic on the internet and PROUD of that then gee, more proof you're an idiot because you have NO IDEA who or what might be reading your posts. There could be some unhinged (to quote you directly) "religious reich" type right down the street from you who, seeing your name and your picture ... Well, you get the idea and yes, you're an idiot.
Being as you have gone so far as to offer to pay my passage to wherever you live, why not just go ahead and post your real address and phone number, that anyone can verify without taking your word for it in your anonymous post, and see what shows up at your door? After all, you are SO damn tough you think you can take any and all comers, you have no idea what or who you're threatening so you must be the biggest bad ass on the planet. Or you're an idiot, those are the two choices, dumbass, and I'm pretty confident in betting you're not the biggest bad ass on the planet so that leaves ... You're an idiot.
Oh, and I don't really care if you STFU or not, the more you say the stupider you look and I have to admit I'm enjoying that. Lay on, MacDuff!
Ironically, the women in
Ironically, the women in Virginia are trying to undergo a truly invasive procedure that could end in one or more deaths (both the baby and the mother) should the procedure be done "incorrectly" or on an individual who is not pregnant... and the feigned outrage exhibited by people who aren't truly concerned for the mother or the child IS unbelieveable.
The law in the state of Virginia requires that a woman be completely informed prior to her "decision" to terminate the life of the in utero baby. I find it amazing that people can be so closed minded against education... and so willing to discriminate against an individual based on that individual's place of residence.
UnJdM
Many pro-abortion people know
Many pro-abortion people know that a public better-informed at fetal development would be appalled at the legal murder of babies old enough to have defined hands. I have an ultrasound of my daughter at 10 weeks with her thumb in her mouth. Her dad didn't know they had hands that early, much less that they can suck on them.
I am alarmed at how many people favor keeping people in the dark. There is nothing wrong with mandating that informed consent truly be informed.
Also an abortion requires several objects go into a woman's vagina. This is no different than the speculum or vacuum except that it helps inform a woman.
With that logic you could
With that logic you could just show the woman a picture of a previous ultra sound. Why subject her to a medically unnecessary procedure? The difference between the vacuum and speculum used and the ultra sound used is that the woman consents to the abortion tools while the ultra sound may be against her will.
Many anti-choice people know that mandating the insertion of ANY object into an unwilling patient is against a persons constitutional rights according to the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..." See how I turned your ability to "read the minds" of pro-abortionists on its side by pretending to "read the minds" of anti-choice people?
If you are a conservative as I suspect, then you probably support the US Constitution in which case you are on the wrong side of this argument. Unless, of course, you are one of those conservatives that only cite the constitution when it serves your narrow ideological views.
You do know abortions are
You do know abortions are sometimes medically needed right?
You do know we are not
You do know we are not talking about those kinds of abortions, right?
A regular ultrasound is one
A regular ultrasound is one thing but to allow a bill to go through that FORCES a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound is wrong and wholly unamerican. This is a free country, not a communist one.
Bad reporting, and a hell of
Bad reporting, and a hell of a lot of misinformation out there on this one.
The Law requires an ultrasound before an abortion can be done.
I don't understand the point since my friend that got an abortion was told by Planned Parenthood they had to do one to confirm pregnancy before they did the abortion.
The issue people have is most women have abortions at early stages when a normal ultrasounds can't detect anything. (It's too small)
So this bill is forcing most women to have the vaginal ultrasound, because the embryo is too small to detect.
My friend had to have this exact procedure done twice before Planned Parenthood would do an abortion, because they couldn't detect anything the first time.
The law seems to only require what the clinics do anyway.
@ Ryan Burch The law in
@ Ryan Burch The law in Virginia requires an ultrasound. Nowhere else. There are many tests to confirm pregnancy that don't involve this invasive procedure. This procedure was mandated by politicians with no input from any major medical establishment like the AMA. There is no medical necessity for this procedure.
Well said. This is a
Well said. This is a political issue driven by the religious reich. If it were something voluntary, it might be different. The women are volunteering/requesting the abortion procedure. I wonder if the lawmakers sponsoring this were forced to have a colonoscopy each time they had a stomach ache if they would think that was OK?
No one is forcing her. An
No one is forcing her. An abortion is almost always elective. If she wants an abortion, then this is part of the procedure. Other objects will go into her vagina to actually kill the baby and remove it.
No part of this is medically
No part of this is medically necessary for the abortion procedure. It is in essence a punishment for the woman.
Where do we get the idiots in
Where do we get the idiots in office, who come up with these laws that only they want, yet tell us God is dead and not allowed in public for real people.
Vaginal penetration with no
Vaginal penetration with no medical use against your will in order to have a LEGAL medical procedure done sounds just like rape to me. State sanctioned rape; UN-EFFIN-BELIEVABLE.