This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. 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.
VA abortion ultrasound law is akin to rape.......
I just saw this on Slate, and I read it, and I have to say that by definition, this would be forced penetration, which is the legal definition of rape.
Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an Abomination
Under the new legislation, women who want an abortion will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. Where’s the outrage?
Image by Stockbyte.
What’s more, a provision of the law that has received almost no media attention would ensure that a certification by the doctor that the patient either did or didn’t “avail herself of the opportunity” to view the ultrasound or listen to the fetal heartbeat will go into the woman’s medical record. Whether she wants it there or not. I guess they were all out of scarlet letters in Richmond.
So the problem is not just that the woman and her physician (the core relationship protected in Roe) no longer matter at all in deciding whether an abortion is proper. It is that the physician is being commandeered by the state to perform a medically unnecessary procedure upon a woman, despite clear ethical directives to the contrary. (There is no evidence at all that the ultrasound is a medical necessity, and nobody attempted to defend it on those grounds.) As an editorial in the Virginian-Pilot put it recently, “Under any other circumstances, forcing an unwilling person to submit to a vaginal probing would be a violation beyond imagining. Requiring a doctor to commit such an act, especially when medically unnecessary, and to submit to an arbitrary waiting period, is to demand an abrogation of medical ethics, if not common decency.”*
Evidently the right of conscience for doctors who oppose abortion are a matter of grave national concern. 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.
The bill will undoubtedly be enacted into law by the governor, Bob McDonnell, who is gunning hard for a gig as vice president and has already indicated that he will sign the bill. “I think it gives full information,” he said this week on WTOP radio’s “Ask the Governor” program. “To be able to have that information before making what most people would say is a very important, serious, life-changing decision, I think is appropriate.”
That’s been the defense of this type of ultrasound law from the outset; it’s merely “more information” for the mother, and, really, what kind of anti-science Neanderthal opposes information? Pretending that this law is just a technological update on Virginia’s informed consent laws has another benefit: You can shame and violate women, while couching it in the language of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s gift that keeps on giving—his opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart. That opinion upheld Congress’ partial-birth abortion ban on the grounds that (although there was no real evidence to support this assumption) some women who have abortions will suffer "severe depression" and “regrets” if they aren’t made to understand the implications of what they have done.*
That's the point of it isn't it? Punishment and deterrent.
Information, my ass.
Quoting katy_kay08:
There is penetration with abortion...if you seek an abortion are you not consenting to the treatments? which also is an important difference of "rape"...there is no consent with rape. I support choice...I don't necessarily support this law on the grounds what the ultrasound pictures will be used for, but comparing it to rape shows very little regard to rape victims.
The difference, IMO, is consent. Yes, there is penetration with an abortion. But the woman has consented to that procedure. If a woman doesn't consent to this kind of ultrasound, then it's not the same.
I've had a vaginal US done four times now for medical purposes, and I can tell you, it was degrading. That probe looks like a damn penis, and they slap a condom on it to boot. I was utterly grossed out by the experience and couldn't imagine forcing someone to do that unless they consented to it.
I may not agree with calling it rape, but it does fit the legal definition of it. However, IMO, it's also forcing a medical procedure on someone without their consent, for which they will have to pay. Should the government be allowed to forced sterilization on women who have had 8 children and are on welfare? IMO, it's a slippery slope.
Quoting katy_kay08:
There is penetration with abortion...if you seek an abortion are you not consenting to the treatments? which also is an important difference of "rape"...there is no consent with rape. I support choice...I don't necessarily support this law on the grounds what the ultrasound pictures will be used for, but comparing it to rape shows very little regard to rape victims.
It's compared to rape because there is no consent. This is not a medically necessary "treatment" required to do an abortion. This is an unnecessary forced vaginal penetration to be done even when both the doctor and the woman DO NOT WANT IT done.
(although I agree that "rape" is an inflammatory term for it. because it's not done in violence or because the one doing it wants to, I actually disagree with calling it rape even though I agree with why others are doing so).
Quoting cjsbmom:
Quoting katy_kay08:
There is penetration with abortion...if you seek an abortion are you not consenting to the treatments? which also is an important difference of "rape"...there is no consent with rape. I support choice...I don't necessarily support this law on the grounds what the ultrasound pictures will be used for, but comparing it to rape shows very little regard to rape victims.The difference, IMO, is consent. Yes, there is penetration with an abortion. But the woman has consented to that procedure. If a woman doesn't consent to this kind of ultrasound, then it's not the same.
I've had a vaginal US done four times now for medical purposes, and I can tell you, it was degrading. That probe looks like a damn penis, and they slap a condom on it to boot. I was utterly grossed out by the experience and couldn't imagine forcing someone to do that unless they consented to it.
I may not agree with calling it rape, but it does fit the legal definition of it. However, IMO, it's also forcing a medical procedure on someone without their consent, for which they will have to pay. Should the government be allowed to forced sterilization on women who have had 8 children and are on welfare? IMO, it's a slippery slope.
I said this in the other thread on this but I think it bears repeating. I am 100% Pro-Choice. In my opinion,as with any other medical procedure, the doctor and patient should have all information available before any final decsion is made.
I have had trans-vaginal u/s on many occasions during my pregnancies because I have an incompetent cervix. There was no real discomfort involved. I have a healthy 14 year old daughter. Of course it may be embarrassing to have this kind of ultrasound. I dont know anyone that feels comfortable with it. However, I also feel the same embarassment when I go for my pelvic exam and now that I am approaching 50 my doctor mentioned colonoscopy and rectal exams. Not looking forward to those for sure!
Why would anyone want a doctor to go in and perform any procedure before knowing what he/she is dealing with? With this legislation, the patient may waive their right to see and hear information pertaining to the ultrasound if they choose. Yes it will be noted in their medical file. When I go to the doctor or have a medical procedure of any kind, any conversations we have or any forms I sign are noted in my file, why should this be any different?
I am sure there are those that intended this bill as as way to "punish" or "humiliate" women and that is extremely sad. If you take the emotion out of it and treat an abortion as any other medical procedure involving risks, then it makes sense for all parties involved to have accurate information.
Here they require the ultrasound to gage the age of the fetus. This determines what type of abortion you need to get.
And to katy-no there is not necessarily penetration with abortion. Not if under 10 weeks and you receive medical abortion.
Its the making you look and hear that i have a problem with. Thats just sick.
Quoting sneffy014:
Quoting cjsbmom:
Quoting katy_kay08:
There is penetration with abortion...if you seek an abortion are you not consenting to the treatments? which also is an important difference of "rape"...there is no consent with rape. I support choice...I don't necessarily support this law on the grounds what the ultrasound pictures will be used for, but comparing it to rape shows very little regard to rape victims.The difference, IMO, is consent. Yes, there is penetration with an abortion. But the woman has consented to that procedure. If a woman doesn't consent to this kind of ultrasound, then it's not the same.
I've had a vaginal US done four times now for medical purposes, and I can tell you, it was degrading. That probe looks like a damn penis, and they slap a condom on it to boot. I was utterly grossed out by the experience and couldn't imagine forcing someone to do that unless they consented to it.
I may not agree with calling it rape, but it does fit the legal definition of it. However, IMO, it's also forcing a medical procedure on someone without their consent, for which they will have to pay. Should the government be allowed to forced sterilization on women who have had 8 children and are on welfare? IMO, it's a slippery slope.
I said this in the other thread on this but I think it bears repeating. I am 100% Pro-Choice. In my opinion,as with any other medical procedure, the doctor and patient should have all information available before any final decsion is made.
I have had trans-vaginal u/s on many occasions during my pregnancies because I have an incompetent cervix. There was no real discomfort involved. I have a healthy 14 year old daughter. Of course it may be embarrassing to have this kind of ultrasound. I dont know anyone that feels comfortable with it. However, I also feel the same embarassment when I go for my pelvic exam and now that I am approaching 50 my doctor mentioned colonoscopy and rectal exams. Not looking forward to those for sure!
Why would anyone want a doctor to go in and perform any procedure before knowing what he/she is dealing with? With this legislation, the patient may waive their right to see and hear information pertaining to the ultrasound if they choose. Yes it will be noted in their medical file. When I go to the doctor or have a medical procedure of any kind, any conversations we have or any forms I sign are noted in my file, why should this be any different?
I am sure there are those that intended this bill as as way to "punish" or "humiliate" women and that is extremely sad. If you take the emotion out of it and treat an abortion as any other medical procedure involving risks, then it makes sense for all parties involved to have accurate information.
That would make sense, except that this MUST be done, even when the doctor says it's not medically necessary. In fact, the doctor faces a $2,500 penalty for not enforcing it.
Quoting katy_kay08:
There is penetration with abortion...if you seek an abortion are you not consenting to the treatments? which also is an important difference of "rape"...there is no consent with rape. I support choice...I don't necessarily support this law on the grounds what the ultrasound pictures will be used for, but comparing it to rape shows very little regard to rape victims.
I have to agree.
The LAW causes outrage in me. Not a comparison to rape.
Quoting SuperChicken:
Quoting sneffy014:
Quoting cjsbmom:
Quoting katy_kay08:
There is penetration with abortion...if you seek an abortion are you not consenting to the treatments? which also is an important difference of "rape"...there is no consent with rape. I support choice...I don't necessarily support this law on the grounds what the ultrasound pictures will be used for, but comparing it to rape shows very little regard to rape victims.The difference, IMO, is consent. Yes, there is penetration with an abortion. But the woman has consented to that procedure. If a woman doesn't consent to this kind of ultrasound, then it's not the same.
I've had a vaginal US done four times now for medical purposes, and I can tell you, it was degrading. That probe looks like a damn penis, and they slap a condom on it to boot. I was utterly grossed out by the experience and couldn't imagine forcing someone to do that unless they consented to it.
I may not agree with calling it rape, but it does fit the legal definition of it. However, IMO, it's also forcing a medical procedure on someone without their consent, for which they will have to pay. Should the government be allowed to forced sterilization on women who have had 8 children and are on welfare? IMO, it's a slippery slope.
I said this in the other thread on this but I think it bears repeating. I am 100% Pro-Choice. In my opinion,as with any other medical procedure, the doctor and patient should have all information available before any final decsion is made.
I have had trans-vaginal u/s on many occasions during my pregnancies because I have an incompetent cervix. There was no real discomfort involved. I have a healthy 14 year old daughter. Of course it may be embarrassing to have this kind of ultrasound. I dont know anyone that feels comfortable with it. However, I also feel the same embarassment when I go for my pelvic exam and now that I am approaching 50 my doctor mentioned colonoscopy and rectal exams. Not looking forward to those for sure!
Why would anyone want a doctor to go in and perform any procedure before knowing what he/she is dealing with? With this legislation, the patient may waive their right to see and hear information pertaining to the ultrasound if they choose. Yes it will be noted in their medical file. When I go to the doctor or have a medical procedure of any kind, any conversations we have or any forms I sign are noted in my file, why should this be any different?
I am sure there are those that intended this bill as as way to "punish" or "humiliate" women and that is extremely sad. If you take the emotion out of it and treat an abortion as any other medical procedure involving risks, then it makes sense for all parties involved to have accurate information.
That would make sense, except that this MUST be done, even when the doctor says it's not medically necessary. In fact, the doctor faces a $2,500 penalty for not enforcing it.
If I am understandfing the legistlation correctly, it calls for a mandatory ultrasound to get specific information regarding the fetus. If they are unable to obtain the information through the standard method than the trans-vaginal method should be used.
Quoting sneffy014:
Quoting SuperChicken:
Quoting sneffy014:
Quoting cjsbmom:
Quoting katy_kay08:
There is penetration with abortion...if you seek an abortion are you not consenting to the treatments? which also is an important difference of "rape"...there is no consent with rape. I support choice...I don't necessarily support this law on the grounds what the ultrasound pictures will be used for, but comparing it to rape shows very little regard to rape victims.The difference, IMO, is consent. Yes, there is penetration with an abortion. But the woman has consented to that procedure. If a woman doesn't consent to this kind of ultrasound, then it's not the same.
I've had a vaginal US done four times now for medical purposes, and I can tell you, it was degrading. That probe looks like a damn penis, and they slap a condom on it to boot. I was utterly grossed out by the experience and couldn't imagine forcing someone to do that unless they consented to it.
I may not agree with calling it rape, but it does fit the legal definition of it. However, IMO, it's also forcing a medical procedure on someone without their consent, for which they will have to pay. Should the government be allowed to forced sterilization on women who have had 8 children and are on welfare? IMO, it's a slippery slope.
I said this in the other thread on this but I think it bears repeating. I am 100% Pro-Choice. In my opinion,as with any other medical procedure, the doctor and patient should have all information available before any final decsion is made.
I have had trans-vaginal u/s on many occasions during my pregnancies because I have an incompetent cervix. There was no real discomfort involved. I have a healthy 14 year old daughter. Of course it may be embarrassing to have this kind of ultrasound. I dont know anyone that feels comfortable with it. However, I also feel the same embarassment when I go for my pelvic exam and now that I am approaching 50 my doctor mentioned colonoscopy and rectal exams. Not looking forward to those for sure!
Why would anyone want a doctor to go in and perform any procedure before knowing what he/she is dealing with? With this legislation, the patient may waive their right to see and hear information pertaining to the ultrasound if they choose. Yes it will be noted in their medical file. When I go to the doctor or have a medical procedure of any kind, any conversations we have or any forms I sign are noted in my file, why should this be any different?
I am sure there are those that intended this bill as as way to "punish" or "humiliate" women and that is extremely sad. If you take the emotion out of it and treat an abortion as any other medical procedure involving risks, then it makes sense for all parties involved to have accurate information.
That would make sense, except that this MUST be done, even when the doctor says it's not medically necessary. In fact, the doctor faces a $2,500 penalty for not enforcing it.
If I am understandfing the legistlation correctly, it calls for a mandatory ultrasound to get specific information regarding the fetus. If they are unable to obtain the information through the standard method than the trans-vaginal method should be used.
Right. Even when the doctor says there is no medical reason to do so. So the woman is subjected to forced vaginal penetration for what reason?
Eight Year Old Girl Given "Catastrophe Award" By Teacher
- cjsbmom
on Feb. 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM