The Virginia House of Delegates again today decided to put off voting on the Senate's version of a bill to require women seeking an abortion to first undergo medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds. They also let the vote "pass by" yesterday, with a more than a thousand demonstrators lined up in a silent protest outside.
Democratic Delegate David Englin writes:
Quick update on Va. GOP's vaginal penetration ultrasound mandate: The Senate version of the bill (Senate Bill 484) was scheduled for debate and final vote today, but House Republicans again made a motion to push off the debate and vote by another day. The same happened for Senate Bill 349, the so-called "conscience clause" bill that allows state-funded adoption and foster care agencies to discriminate against GLBT families and youth.
House Democrats then attempted a parliamentary maneuver that would have killed the ultrasound bill forever, but that failed on a party-line vote. Therefore, both bills are now scheduled for debate and vote tomorrow.
Virginia Republicans are suddenly running scared of their own social agenda!
Back in December, Governor Bob McDonnell's administration approved a new list of reasons adoption agencies can discriminate against prospective parents -- including religion, political belief and sexual orientation. More on Virginia's "conscience clause" for adoptions bill here.
Leave a Comment:
Virginia is for haters...
I'm working on a new argument. Giving the fetus "rights" won't impact abortion. Here's why:
For me it’s a matter of consent. Vaginal sex does not, by itself, equal consent to pregnancy, and even if you thin that it does, vaginal sex WITH contraception explicitly says NO consent to pregnancy. There are laws in this country requiring consent to donate a liver, a kidney, bone marrow, even blood. The American Red Cross can’t stick you with a needle unless you give consent and that is only 30 minutes of your time. People can be in criminal trouble for trying to take organs without consent.
Giving a fetus rights, or simply assuming that they have them anyway, doesn’t allow it non consensual access to a woman’s organs. We are not test tubes for men’s sperm and NO man’s sperm should have more of a right to a woman’s body than she does.
A woman has every right to not donate to a fetus the way they (and any man) have every right to not donate blood or a kidney. All are life or death situations. It doesn’t mean an unborn’s right to life trumps a born person’s anymore than a sick person’s right to life trumps a healthy person’s.
A woman, and the doctor that removes the fetus, would be no more guilty of the death of the fetus as she would the death of anyone she didn’t donate to. The doctor is simply playing the role of police officer – removing someone that I don’t want on my person.
Consent is the key. And sex with contraception explicitly says no consent is given.
I’ll also note that regarding abortions for the health of the mother, there are already criminal statutes available. It’s called self defense. If you’re injured or being harmed by another "person" you have the right to self defense. You don’t have to sit there and take it. Any doctor who performs an abortion for the health of the mother would be covered under self defense of a third person.
I don’t know any criminal lawyers, but it would be fun to sit and work this argument out legally with one. Because frankly, I think granting a fetus "rights", makes the abortion argument much easier to make. The laws are already written.
As Dan Savage, sex advice columnist, explained on his podcast: They don't care about lowering the abortion rate. The underlying thinking with these people is that sex is for procreation and procreation only. Any kind of sex for fun (with birth control or with someone of the same sex) is a sin, and we need to be punished for having fun.
As for pregnancy from rape, I'm sure they also firmly believe the woman "deserved it" and needs to pay the price for her promiscuity.
Either way, no free passes. You want to have sex, you should be prepared for the consequences. Birth control and abortions only encourage that sinful sex for fun.
You make some very interesting points for debate. If the embryo, it's not a fetus for this argument, since most removals are made between 6-12 weeks, is trespassing, then the embryo can be removed from the private property (your person) and charged with trespassing, theft and maybe unlawful entry. Interesting argument.
Right, and I know the right isn't being logical, but from a logical/legal stand point, how does the argument read? I'm looking for a few logical/legal devil's advocates to help me iron it out. Not really the, "they're in outer space, so don't bother trying". Even though we all know they are. :) Thanks!
This all stems from the ancient biological imperitive to reproduce. Men have been trying to control their external means of reproduction (women) since the first caveman clubbed a woman on the head and carried her of to his cave.
This legalalize rape mandated by the state is only the latest tactic in that battle to control womens wombs. They have tried branding Scarlett letters on womens foreheads to shame them and now they resort to rape to shame them.
This is not about unborn children and never has been. This is about the current crop of Knuckle Dragging Neadrathals who are trying to assert control over the priceless gift that women posess.
@PatP11111:
I say we give the Knuckle Draggers their own set of ovaries and let 'em have PMS every 28 days... That'll learn 'em!
But how does the argument read? Does it make sense? Do you see a loop hole? This is regarding the personhood amendment that they're trying to pass.
devil's advocate.... squatters rights? :D
lol! Good question. How long do squatters have to be there before they're afforded squatter's rights? lol!
Megan@ gmail, you are brilliant. What a great argument. Girl run for Congress and give us women our rights back, which are protected under the 9th and 14th Amendment!
Interesting, but I see a big problem with the idea that using contraception signifies an explicit withholding of consent: does the failure to use contraception (either birth control or a single-use method) represent consent? What kind of proof should a woman have to bring along to show she was making an adequate effort to prevent pregnancy, to give her the right to end it? I think the spirit of that argument would last all of about 3 seconds, when abstinence-only advocates got ahold of it.
Thanks Stephanie, but I don't have the personality for it. I'd rip some @!$%#'s head off with my bare hands. I'm more of a behind the scenes researcher for someone else. :) But what you can do is if you do believe it's a good argument, start using it. Tell your reps - House and Senate. If personhood won't affect abortion, people will stop trying to pass it.
@bainidhe,
I don't see how anyone could argue that using contraception equals consent for pregnancy. The (main) purpose of contraception is to prevent pregnancy. And I can see people saying, "prove you used something!" but I don't think women should need to provide proof. However, playing my own devil's advocate, they could provide the contraception method - pill, patch, nuva ring, etc. Or a doctor's note indicating the last time the shot was given or the date the IUD was inserted. For condoms, they would just need to bring a broken one i guess. No one could prove it wasn't that condom and no one could prove it was. In any case, the intent to prevent pregnancy is there. I would hope if it turned out a burden of proof was required, that the burden of proof would be on the state, not on the woman.
And as far as abstinence, that's the same thing as sex with contraception. Both are done with the purpose of not getting pregnant. The argument is no different.
Thank you! Keep them coming!
Megan, I understand where you're coming from with this argument -- and it's an interesting one. However, I do see a loophole you've overlooked.
The point of sex, at it's most fundamental level, is procreation (and let me qualify myself here, I am a pro-choice woman who enjoys sex for pleasure just as much as the next person -- but I'm playing Devil's Advocate); and no birth control can offer a 100% pregnancy prevention success rate. So, when you have sex, one of the potential consequences is pregnancy, regardless of whether or not contraception was used. Further, abstinence and sex with contraception are not really the same thing, because one (contraception) is still assuming greater risk than the other (abstinence).
Also, it could be argued that in its most basic state, the only consequence of the act of sex is procreation. It's the only result that can happen to every single heterosexual couple who engages in sex -- others may experience love, STIs, orgasms, etc. -- but not everyone, and not every time.
I think the problem with your argument is picking and choosing consequences. A consequence by definition doesn't rely on intent -- it's basic cause and effect.
Megan, this is surely one of the best and most helpful comments to a blog post I've ever seen. You can bet I'll be using it. To elaborate on the initial premise where you say, "Vaginal sex does not, by itself, equal consent to pregnancy," my first thought was that it no more equals consent to pregnancy than it does to volunteering for infection with an STD. And just because you assumed the risk of an STD by having sex, that surely doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to cure it. Stuff happens.
Megan @ gmail
This is an outstanding argument that should be pursued in the courts. Fetuses delivered before 24 weeks do not live so these laws are defending the rights of something that is not alive in the scientific sense. That means that these laws violate separation between church and state, and the trespass argument ties this together into a nice neat package.
Unfortunately, Republicans are suffering from some kind of mass hallucination that renders them fact proof on this topic.
It is becoming harder to understand how mentally healthy people can vote GOP.
I have a different take on this subject. They want to define life at conception, before the heart begins to beat and the brain has even began to form and function. They are saying that there is a life and it is a person.
Now, your grandmother dies and you keep cashing her social security checks. The feds find you and haul you into court for fraud. By the Republican definition, your grandmother is still alive and deserves those checks that you are cashing for her. Her heart has stopped and her brain is dead, but their definition does not require either for there to be life.
The legal definition of death states that "If a patient's entire brain is nonfunctioning, so that breathing and heartbeat are maintained only by artificial means, that patient meets the whole-brain standard of death." Since the brain does not start functioning until week 6, the fetus is kept alive by artificial means (the mother) and thus is legally dead by the definition accepted by all 50 states and D.C.
Would personhood laws nullify this standard and allow people to vote for dead people and cash their checks because there is life before there is life?
it appears the intratubes ate my first comment - if this turns out to be a double post, my apologies. not exactly a double post, since i don't remember exactly what i said the first time... but essentially one.
to build on what Jim Strain said, in many states it is *illegal* to knowingly have an STI and have sex with a person who doesn't know you have it. [even with a condom] from there, it's a logical leap to "having sex with a person and infecting them with a parasite*" - not that i think we should make accidentally getting someone pregnant a crime [deliberately getting someone pregnant against their is a crime in most states - up to rape in some.] but it follows the logic of "i consented to sex, not an STI." "I consented to sex, not pregnancy."
as for the whole "sex is for reproduction ONLY, having sex *IS* consenting to pregnancy" - well, if one believes we are a *created* species, then if sex really WAS repro-only, i'd expect us to either go into "heat", or to have a MUCH high sex:pregnancy ration. the exact *same* argument applies [if you can find anyone who'd who actually believes we're evolved but sex is repro-only]] if one believes we are an evolved species but still thinks sex is "repro-only" - either we'd have evolved a "heat", like most mammals have, or we'd have a *much* larger sex:pregnancy ratio.
but science has, in multiple ways, PROVEN that sex is NOT repro-only. for instance, there ARE animals - bonobos and dolphins come to mind - who have "sex for fun" [or social needs. whatever]. sex boosts the immune system. it can help mitigate the effects of depression [and even, sometimes, temporarily "cure" it]. it helps create strong bonds between partners. hell, according to a certain sort of misogynist, sex is *ALSO* for "punishment" in the form of rape.
i do think is was a great, even wonderful, idea - and i'm terrified that we'll actually need to use it, and soon. but, the thing is, as so many others have noted - this is NOT, and never HAS been, about "SAVE THE POOR, INNOCENT BAYBEES!" it's about control - controlling women's bodies, returning us to a time when ALL we could really "be" was either a wife and mother [sometimes a religious servant, celibate and chaste*] or a prostitute. [which isn't exactly true - poor women have ALWAYS worked. they just couldn't control WHAT the work WAS, and weren't allowed to receive their own earnings; whichever man owned them received the earnings, whether it was father, husband, brother, etc. or "pimp". sigh]. it's ALSO about controlling men at one remove - if we return to a society that forces men to marry the first woman he gets pregnant, most men are forced into the "best" job they can get RIGHT THEN, and have their opportunities for further education and/or advancement almost as curtailed as women's opportunites would be.
because the far right doesn't want educated, informed voters who will vote in the best interests of the nation as a whole; they want ignorant, single-issue voters who will, eventually, vote in a government who will regress us, and not to 1950, or even 1850, but all the way back to something like *1350*, where ALL women and MOST men were property. that's what they want.
and if we keep allowing them to frame reproductive rights as "about saving the poor widdle BABEES!" we're allowing - even HELPING - them lie.
these people DO NOT LIKE the societial advancements. they hate the fact that a poor Cherokee woman like me can go to college and have a career and even [though *I* won't, i'm now permanently disabled] become RICH and be able to buy politicians just like THEY do. or poor black people, or poor latin@ people, or poor asian people... frankly, they don't consider ANY of us to BE people, not women or non-white or poor white people. we're the "underclass", and all this social progress has made us "uppity", and by gods they *WILL* do everything they can to put us back in our place - under their heel.
it's currently a war on women because they think that's the easiest place to start. but it's also a war-on-the-not-rich.
scientifically and medically, a zygote/embrio/fetus *IS* a parasite. though i don't recommend actually USING the word "parasite" - that will garner the EXACT response of "YOU HATE BAYBEES!" and will quickly devolve into other attacks upon one's character. you'd think that not wanting a baby, or not liking babies, was a crime equal to mass genocide, the way the fundies go off on it. i DON'T like babies, though i like toddlers and children, just not enough to have my own. i have nieces and nephews, which is great. i'm not "motherly" - another "high sin" in the Republican's book, as is the fact that i can't have children. i'm a non-functional uterus to them, essentially useless. because a woman who can't [or won't] have children is one of the worst things one can be, apparantly. i'm *terrified* they're going to fully take over.
Thank you everyone for your help! First and foremost, if you like the argument, please send it on to your Senators and Reps!!
@LindseyH - Not sure what this sentence means? Maybe you meant it backwards? "and no birth control can offer a 100% pregnancy prevention success rate" Also, I'll point forward to @JimStrain who points out that sex "can" result in an STD, but that's not necessarily why you did it in the first place. And just because you get a sexually transmitted disease, doesn't mean you're not allowed to do anything about it. (I won't go with "cure" simply because they could start off a completely unwanted firestorm). Thanks!
@JimStrain - Thanks! Excellent point! I'm going to add it to my overall write up.
@Crackhead Awards and @mksmith - both good. I never thought that by changing the definition of "person" they would be affecting the definition of "death" as well. Interesting... :)
@Denelian - Thanks.
@LindseyH - Just got it. :) I thought you meant using no birth control can offer... Duh. :) You're saying there isn't a single birth control method that can 100% prevent it. Got it. Thanks!
Pass laws to make it that much more difficult to put adoptive children in loving homes. They do so much better being abused in foster care.
I imagine after Virginia passes the rape by doctors/legislature law that neighboring states will get an influx of business.
That's one of the areas that pisses me off the most about the whole adoption/foster care alternative to abortion. Inherently speaking there's nothing wrong w/ advocating adoption as an alternative. Some people may be persuaded to think that way and then everyone is happy. W/ that said only a complete lunatic or moron would advocate our current adoption system in lieu of abortion. Do these people even realize how much higher the rates of abuse are for adopted children and especially foster children than that of the general population? What about the poverty and gang rates? Drug abuse? Violence and crime rates? Average life expectancy? All of these things are affected by children who are put up for adoption and/or who grow up in and out of foster care. Do these people even realize how many children never get adopted, but age out of the process altogether and/or emancipate themselves so they no longer have to participate in the system?
Advocating that women just put their kids up for adoption instead of aborting is like advocating that people just turn to the church for food assistance instead of the federal government. It sounds great until you actually do research on the subject and actually try to make an informed opinion. This is also part of why I don't believe these people really care about the abortion rate, but rather care about controlling women. They start out arguing that 'it's about life' but you cross examine them and w/in a few seconds the argument falls apart. And that tells me people aren't advocating these policies as seriously as they should be taking them or as seriously as they claim to be taking them. Why else then don't you, at the very least, see these policies of restricting abortion coupled w/ policies that help correct the problems surrounding adoption and foster care? Why aren't Republicans thumping their chests about helping to fix funding these centers, helping to ease the regulatory system surrounding these centers (hey aren't they the anti-regulation bunch anyways?), and generally trying to make it easier to adopt American instead of foreign (eww did I really just make a commodities comparison? yes, but you get my meaning).
Ditto.
"Transvaginal Ultrasound" -sounds like a new audiophile product from Japan for swapping mp3's-
Sure, but it would be a kawaii female-friendly product Lady Gaga and Katy Perry would approve.
This is insane. I cannot believe what is happening in Virginia. I am in complete shock.
I can't believe what's happening in this Nation !
Yet another person recognizes the irony of claiming to be sane while Republican.
What do Republican politicians know about having a conscience?
They're taking time off to attack the Girl Scouts.
If Republicans are so against birth control and women's health, then why haven't they brought up outlawing vasectomies which is a form of birth control...heck, why not make condoms illegal too! Let's hit these 'men' below the belt so to speak!!! How about women's health rights decided by women? What a concept!
Love the comment!:)
Virginia, once know as "Virginia is for lovers" has swung far right and is now know by many as "Virginia is for Haters"
Sometime last week, I was abducted by space aliens who transported me back to 1955. since then I have struggled to adjust to the neanderthall attitudes that are rampant in my home state of Virginia. Please someone, trasprot me back to the 21st century!
This is the most powerful, yet civil, display of citizen disapproval I've seen yet. It sends the unambiguous message that we are watching. And, we will remember when it's time for their re-election.
But you realize that, from deep inside his Fortress of Paranoia, Andrew Breitbart was screaming at the silent protestors to stop raping people on the statehouse lawn. And, at this very moment, I imagine that there is a Republican member of the Virginia legislature who is drafting legislation to outlaw passive aggression on state property.
Keep adding material for the late night shows until November... Hitting bottom does not give too much 'material' for the GOP Presidential Candidates to work from that is on the positive side..... keep hampering them.
The Dems should have pushed for a vote on the bill. Put the legislators on the record.
just require every man to donate his sperm then get a vasectomy..then when a woman WISHES to get pregnant the two of them go to the bank and make a withdrawal. no contraceptives involved!! lol
seriously this is the time for ALL women of all ages to stand up and say NO we will not let men decide what is right for our bodies and our health.
where are the women in their lives? are they so brainwashed that this outrage is acceptable to them??
Maybe it's a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
Let's see ... Discourage, even repeal contraceptive care, family planning and all abortions reguardless of cause or health concerns, then make it even harder for people to adopt the resulting offspring. Hmmm ... does anyone else see a flaw in the thought process? I guess we should look into opening some workhouses so we can defray the cost of their care ...
There's really only one logical explanation for the bills that have been written by these anti-choice republicans... Money! Someone has to be donating large chunks of money to their campaigns, and those donors probably have a vested interest in the building of more ultra-sound machines, or some kind of connection that would make them more money... like, say, AIG or any other insurance company that would profit from all this anti-woman activity. And I'll bet you guys on the Maddow crew would know how to fact check this. Blow it wide open guys! It's not about us chics... it's about money! (and the power that money gives you)
This is what I've been wondering too
Insane donors.
Wealthy insane donors that think they are on a mission from god.
I doubt that money explains it. I don't see makers of ultrasound machines being a major lobby. But pharmaceutical companies are a major lobby. Since nearly all women use contraceptives at some point in their lives, pharmaceutical companies have some major skin in this game, so it is in their interest to keep contraception legal. I find it hard to imagine that the corporate side of medicine would be on the Republicans' side in this fight.
Also, health insurance companies make money from having healthy people give them money, rather than paying money out to sick people. If the Republicans get their way, women's health will make a sharp turn for the worse. So, again, I don't see the corporate side of medicine being on the Republicans' side.
So what I think, for what it's worth, is that all this legislation is coming from a deep well of True Belief™.
They stupidly think that by delaying a vote that people wont be mad at them. WRONG. We ARE mad at them and will hold them accountable.
I propose a tourist ban directed toward the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any takers?
I propose OCCUPY. Silently. Force the vote.
I am proud of Virginians for showing up at the the capitol in Richmond from all over the state for silent protest. I'll be among them tomorrow when this is put to vote.
If it will come up for a vote tomorrow.
I suspect the Republicans will continue to put it off until something more egregious comes up and the Nation looks the other way.
You mean something like Newt cheating on his 3rd wife?
"DEAR EDITOR: I am 33 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no right for a woman to control her own body. Papa says, 'If you see it in the news it's so.' Please tell me the truth; is there no right for a woman to control her own body?"
"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."
VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the fundamentalism of a fundamentalist age. They do not believe except what the evangelicals tell them to see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, VIRGINIA, there are rights for women to control their own bodies. Those rights exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no rights of women to control their own body. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no equality then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which equality fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in a woman's right to say no! You might as well not believe in a man's right to viagra and vasectomies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the clinics in the state to catch a woman making a choice about her body, but even if they did not see her making an informed decision about her body without a transvaginal ultrasound, what would that prove? Nobody "sees" women's rights to control their own bodies, but that is no sign that there are no rights for a woman to control her own body. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No rights for women to control their own bodies! Nonsense! Those rights live, and live forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, they will continue to make glad the heart of humankind.
I wish I could be optimistic that the Virginia GOP is running scared. I think they're just trying to ready themselves for the firestorm to follow. Hope I'm wrong.
They're probably only waiting for the media's attention to be diverted by the next shiny thing. It'll be passed and signed into law when they think no one is looking.
Then keep the media attention!! Think back to Wisconsin a year ago, my state of residence. I spent a week in the capitol, and I must say marble and granite are not very comfortable. But the media paid attention for weeks! Things spread fast on social media. The group that tried to push personhood in Mississippi is looking at Wisconsin next and we are ready to fight!
They've put it off twice, Mug, to avoid the @!$%# storm. We keep showing up and staring them down. Hell hath no fury...
By Julian Walker
The Virginian-Pilot
© February 21, 2012
RICHMOND
A House of Delegates vote on a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound test before having an abortion was delayed until tomorrow after a short, contentious debate this afternoon.
The move came as a public outcry to bills restricting abortion has prompted some lawmakers to hint they may soften the ultrasound bills.
Two legislators -- one a conservative Republican -- speaking today on the condition of anonymity said one idea officials have discussed is making the ultrasound legislation optional rather than mandatory.
Other options are to pass the bills by or park them in committee. Either of those moves could effectively shelve the legislation for the year.
The ultrasound bill, SB484, introduced by Sen. Jill Vogel, R-Fauquier, passed the Senate 21-19 last week, largely with Republican votes.
A request by Republicans by delay the House vote for a day was contested by Del. David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville, who instead asked the House to pass by the bill indefinitely. Technically, Toscano’s motion would not have derailed the bill, which could have been resurrected by the House’s Republican majority, but would have taken it off the calendar.
Toscano’s motion failed on a 68-32 vote after Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, urged Republicans to vote no.
The brief debate was one-sided, as Del. Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria, chastised Republicans for supporting a bill that would require a majority of women having abortions to submit to having a probe inserted into their vagina.
“The national conversation about Virginia is about whether a vaginal probe is a mandatory requirement before a woman exercises her constitutional right,” she said. “It is time to end the shame that has been brought to this state by this bill.”
Republicans did not chose to defend the bill on the House floor.
Prior to the motion, Del. Lionel Spruill, D-Chesapeake, gave an impassioned speech, in which he said Vogel’s bill would “force what I consider a legal rape with an ultra sound probe.”
“I don’t know all of you well, but I know some of you well, and I am deeply disappointed in you,” he said. “I cannot believe that you would disrespect women and mothers in such a way. This legislation is simply mean spirited and it is bullying, bullying women simply because you can.”
I think a change to optional would be acceptable. I'm not against women having as much information as they can to make the decision. But to force them to have one is disgusting.
On a lead in to one of the MSNBC shows yesterday, they played a clip of a conservative female radio host, I believe, who basically said, "Why should a women reject a procedure so similar to what she had to consent to to get pregnant in the first place?" That's a very dangerous place to go, it's so much closer to blaming rape on the woman, because she's a slut, and she must not mind because she's already having sex. Totally disgusting to be in the mainstream national discussion.
They say 'ultrasound' like it is just the jelly on the belly ultrasound....this is vaginal penetration ultrasound..a very different animal
Thank you. I especially like the information/quotes you posted from the officials opposing this legalized forcible rape at today's discussion in the VA legislature. Too bad they are in the minority. I cannot believe how far back these proposed laws would take us. Thousands of steps backwards, and now the leading GOP pres. candidate: Dr. InSane-otorum is attacking prenatal care! I am appalled and furious. Obviously...where are the women's voices???and...Where are the medical professionals voices in all this?
You may not want to make the mistake of believing them when they say laws like this are about providing information. These laws only kick in after a woman has decided to seek an abortion, by which time she already knows that she's pregnant and already has enough information on which to make what is always a very difficult decision (according to every story told by every woman who's had an abortion that I have ever heard). So, since the decision to abort is generally arrived at by means of sufficient information, the intervention of the state in this manner and at this stage is clearly meant to harass, humiliate and bully women into making the one choice that Republicans are willing to allow.
I'm so thankful for these people. Thank you for representing my voice all the way on the other side of the country. You are true sheroes (and heroes)!
I am really hoping that physicians tell the Virginia legislators in no uncertain and plain English to "Go @!$%# Themselves " I ain't performing a unnecessary procedure take me to court. Sorry for the language but in this case there ain't no way to put it diplomatically