Jump to content


Virginia Legislature Approves State Violation of Women's Inner Sanctum


194 replies to this topic

#1 rubbernecker

    Advanced Fumbler

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 426 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 09:06 AM

Hester Prynne, we hardly knew ye.

Quote

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.

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.

#2 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 18 February 2012 - 09:10 AM

Just sickening.

And even worse is that some large double-digit percentage of women will vote for the people responsible for this next time around.
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#3 primrose

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 933 posts
  • LocationNew York State

Posted 18 February 2012 - 09:50 AM

It is because they think women can't make decisions. On Bill Maher a republican said it is good for the state to help women "redecide" the issue because some women regret it. The fact that the numbers in fostercare show some women also regret having children never enters into it. Obviously, we silly little women don't think about it.

I really wish the figure that something like 60% of women who have abortions are mothers already came into greater knowledge. It would go long way to changing the public's mind.

#4 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 18 February 2012 - 09:55 AM

The people who support this also generally consider the individual mandate an intolerable breach of individual liberty.
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#5 Sinan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2737 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 18 February 2012 - 10:00 AM

The little missy law...missy, now that you have gone and violated your honor by spreading your legs and making a baby, we are not going to let you compound your wanton ways by allowing you to have an abortion. So once again little missy, spread em.

Why any woman would ever vote for this band of barbarians is beyond me.
"anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."
Kenneth Boulding

"A person who reads books lives a thousand lives. A person who never reads lives only one"
George Martin

"Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho?"
Zappa

"and let not mankind bogart love"

Willie Nelson and Colbert

#6 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 18 February 2012 - 10:04 AM

View PostSinan, on 18 February 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Why any woman would ever vote for this band of barbarians is beyond me.

Religion. It rots the mind.
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#7 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 18 February 2012 - 10:53 AM

If you read the comments to the article, several medical professionals note that it would be necessary to get an ultrasound anyway prior to the abortion, in order to know where exactly the fetus is. So this law does not change the fact that women seeking abortions would necessarily have an ultrasound done anyway.

Beyond that, the law itself does not specify what kind of sonogram these women must take. Abdominal (i.e. regular, noninvasive) sonograms are not reliable before six weeks following conception. But "transvaginal" ultrasounds are only reliable from 4.5-5 weeks following conception. And there is zero reason to think that this law mandates transvaginal ultrasounds even within the 7-10 day period where the difference in technique might hypothetically matter. The Democrats tried and failed to introduce an amendment that would have required written consent for the latter procedure, but that is a sideshow since there is no legal mandate for a transvaginal ultrasound whatsoever.

In other words, Dahlia Lithwick, a notoriously over-the-top liberal distortion artist, is lying to advance her "pro-choice" agenda. What a surprise.

#8 Rabiner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3723 posts
  • LocationCulver City, CA

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:17 AM

View PostRaskolnik, on 18 February 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

If you read the comments to the article, several medical professionals note that it would be necessary to get an ultrasound anyway prior to the abortion, in order to know where exactly the fetus is. So this law does not change the fact that women seeking abortions would necessarily have an ultrasound done anyway.

Beyond that, the law itself does not specify what kind of sonogram these women must take. Abdominal (i.e. regular, noninvasive) sonograms are not reliable before six weeks following conception. But "transvaginal" ultrasounds are only reliable from 4.5-5 weeks following conception. And there is zero reason to think that this law mandates transvaginal ultrasounds even within the 7-10 day period where the difference in technique might hypothetically matter. The choice as to what kind of sonogram to take would presumably be left to the woman. There is no legal mandate for a transvaginal ultrasound whatsoever.

In other words, Dahlia Lithwick, a notoriously over-the-top liberal distortion artist, is lying to advance her "pro-choice" agenda. What a surprise.

Sorry you're wrong. http://www.arlnow.co...al-penetration/ "… only an invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound can effectively determine gestation age during much of the first trimester, which is when most abortions occur. Englin offered an amendment to require the pregnant woman’s consent prior to subjecting her to a vaginal penetration ultrasound, but House Republicans rejected the amendment by a vote of 64 to 34."

Not to mention that the doctor has to document if the woman watches the ultrasound and to put that in her medical records. As if that is medically relevant. And even if I was to go along with your argument that a doctor already has to do an ultrasound before performing an abortion, then why is it necessary to pass this law with all its added restrictions and regulations? And who pays for the procedure that may or may not be medically necessary? The woman of course because why would an insurance company cover an unnecessary procedure?
Government in particular has an obligation to dismiss any employee who claims a right to discriminate against citizens. - Garret Epps

#9 sweatyb

    Wisenheimer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1409 posts
  • LocationBergen County, New Jersey

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:20 AM

View PostRaskolnik, on 18 February 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

If you read the comments to the article, several medical professionals note that it would be necessary to get an ultrasound anyway prior to the abortion, in order to know where exactly the fetus is.

Nothing more authoritative than the semi-anonymous comments on Slate. :huh:

Quote

Beyond that, the law itself does not specify what kind of sonogram these women must take.

What is the point of the law if the sonogram doesn't actually show the baby? "Here's a blob of nothing from inside your body, are you sure you want to have an abortion?"

This is a heinous law. It's not about preventing abortions, it's about shaming and controlling women.
"Oddly enough, I think I have become a Randian Socialist. It is in my own rational self-interest to have all of society's educational and healthcare needs met." - Budgiegirl

#10 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:23 AM

View PostRabiner, on 18 February 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

And even if I was to go along with your argument that a doctor already has to do an ultrasound before performing an abortion, then why is it necessary to pass this law with all its added restrictions and regulations?

This is the bottom line for me. If it were really medically necessary, an invasive law would not be required to force people to do it. Simple logic.
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#11 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:24 AM

Quote

Sorry you're wrong. http://www.arlnow.co...al-penetration/ "… only an invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound can effectively determine gestation age during much of the first trimester, which is when most abortions occur

Did you read the link I edited in?

The one from prochoice.org?

Quote


Transabdominal ultrasound (TAU) and transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) are valuable diagnostic tools in obstetrics and gynecology. There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods.


Transabdominal ultrasound provides a panoramic view of the abdomen and pelvis and is noninvasive, whereas TVU provides a more limited pelvic view and requires insertion of a probe into the vagina.


...



Both TVU and TAU are easy to learn and can be readily combined with pelvic examination, although the expense of either ultrasound study may be an important consideration in some clinical settings.

Transabdominal ultrasound cannot reliably diagnose pregnancies that are < 6 weeks' gestation. Transvaginal ultrasound, by contrast, can detect pregnancies earlier, at approximately 4 ½ to 5 weeks' gestation. Prompt diagnosis made possible by TVU can, therefore, result in earlier treatment.



Who's wrong again?

#12 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:27 AM

Quote

And who pays for the procedure that may or may not be medically necessary? The woman of course because why would an insurance company cover an unnecessary procedure?

Except in the case of ectopic pregnancies there is no such thing as a "medically necessary" abortion, and federal funds are already prohibited from being used to pay for abortions, so I'm really not sure what your point is here.

The only thing this law does is mandate that, when a woman wants an abortion, she be provided with the option of listening to her fetus' heartbeat and seeing her fetus via ultrasound. That is all. There is no "mandated rape." There is nothing to see here, except righteous liberal indignation over their supposed right to murder the unborn.

#13 sweatyb

    Wisenheimer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1409 posts
  • LocationBergen County, New Jersey

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:35 AM

View PostRaskolnik, on 18 February 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

The only thing this law does is mandate that, when a woman wants an abortion, she be provided with the option of listening to her fetus' heartbeat and seeing her fetus via ultrasound.

Wow! Not only do you totally not understand why people object to the law, you also don't understand the law itself. Impressive!
"Oddly enough, I think I have become a Randian Socialist. It is in my own rational self-interest to have all of society's educational and healthcare needs met." - Budgiegirl

#14 Rue Bella

    Emerging from a state of cryogenic denial

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8108 posts
  • LocationSoCal

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:42 AM

Quote

That is all.

Obviously you don't have a vagina.
What is wrong with these people? ~ PG

California Secession - Let my people go!

#15 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:44 AM

So rather than engage on the substance of the TAU vs. TVU procedures, presumably because you don't understand that the purpose of the law is precisely to show the woman what you call a "blob of nothing," you accuse me of being wrong about the content of the law. Which I am not.

Quote

Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable.

The purpose of this law is to make it known to all relevant parties that even a 12-week-old fetus has a heartbeat. All the law does is require that, when seeking an elective procedure (NB the "except in the case of a medical emergency" clause), the patient first consent to a prior procedure to determine the age of the fetus. Yes, it is possible that a woman might hear her baby's heartbeat, look at the ultrasound, see her baby sucking its thumb, and change her mind. WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM.

Quote

Obviously you don't have a vagina.

What does having a vagina have to do with being able to read the text of a legal document?

#16 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:53 AM

I'm confused.

An hour ago you said this:

View PostRaskolnik, on 18 February 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

So this law does not change the fact that women seeking abortions would necessarily have an ultrasound done anyway.

And now you say:

View PostRaskolnik, on 18 February 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

The purpose of this law is to make it known to all relevant parties that even a 12-week-old fetus has a heartbeat.

Which is it?
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#17 Rabiner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3723 posts
  • LocationCulver City, CA

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:56 AM

View PostRaskolnik, on 18 February 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

So rather than engage on the substance of the TAU vs. TVU procedures, presumably because you don't understand that the purpose of the law is precisely to show the woman what you call a "blob of nothing," you accuse me of being wrong about the content of the law. Which I am not.

The purpose of this law is to make it known to all relevant parties that even a 12-week-old fetus has a heartbeat.

What does having a vagina have to do with being able to read the text of a legal document? My wife is a lawyer...

1. if its already a medically necessary procedure, you don't need to pass legislation like this.
2. whats the point of having the doctor write if the woman watched the ultrasound in her medical records?
3. what was the point of voting against the amendment that required consent of the woman before getting a vaginal ultrasound or she'd only get the non-evasive one?
4.

View PostRaskolnik, on 18 February 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Except in the case of ectopic pregnancies there is no such thing as a "medically necessary" abortion, and federal funds are already prohibited from being used to pay for abortions, so I'm really not sure what your point is here.

The only thing this law does is mandate that, when a woman wants an abortion, she be provided with the option of listening to her fetus' heartbeat and seeing her fetus via ultrasound. That is all. There is no "mandated rape." There is nothing to see here, except righteous liberal indignation over their supposed right to murder the unborn.

Actually its an ultrasound without the consent of the woman which vaginally penetrates her. I've heard of penetration without consent as rape before (granted out of context here). And we already know where you're coming from regarding 'murder the unborn'. The real conservative position is to let women to decide what to do with their bodies without coercion from the state.

5. You took Dahlia Lithwick our of context of course. She never said it mandated only vaginal ultrasounds but required them in the vast majority of cases since the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. "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."
Government in particular has an obligation to dismiss any employee who claims a right to discriminate against citizens. - Garret Epps

#18 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:57 AM

View PostRaskolnik, on 18 February 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Except in the case of ectopic pregnancies there is no such thing as a "medically necessary" abortion...

Um... what? Are you seriously claiming the only medical issue that can cause an abortion to be necessary is an ectopic pregnancy?
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#19 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:57 AM

Charles, I don't see how those statements contradict each other. Yes, SOP for abortion is to get an ultrasound first regardless. This law requires abortion providers to give expectant mothers the option to see the ultrasound; prior to this law, even though they would have taken the ultrasound anyway, they were not required to show it to the mother. The only difference is that now the provider is legally mandated to display the results of the ultrasound to the woman seeking the abortion.

#20 primrose

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 933 posts
  • LocationNew York State

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:57 AM

Raskolnk, there is absolutely no need to have an ultrasound before an abortion, nor much need to know more than if the woman is pregnant before dispensing a chemical one. So what you say is simply not true.

But to me the true offensive part of this is the idea that government gets to re-decide, and how are they re-deciding by taking a rational decision and exchanging a reactive one. Encouraging that kind of thinking increases the chance of regret not decreases it.

And again, approximately 60% of the women having abortions are mothers. They know what this is about.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users