.png){kind=logo}
February 17, 2012 at 11:30 am 
Ed Brayton Rachel Maddow had a harrowing segment about a couple bills being passed in Virginia. One is a personhood amendment that would ban most forms of birth control; the other is a bill that would require invasive ultrasounds for all women seeking an abortion. She points out the incongruity of claiming you’re for small government while supporting a bill that would require penetrating a woman’s vagina with a medical implement. Prepare to be pissed off.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Posted in 
It’s just the usual. The incessant Tea Party/Theothuglican War on Women.
In the past few decades, there has been a marked gender disparity in voting patterns.
If you are female, don’t vote for these guys.
If you are female, dDon’t vote for these guys.Fixed that
raven, #1: In the past few decades, there has been a marked gender disparity in voting patterns.
It is increasingly apparent that the only reason to vote Republican is if you really hate people who aren’t you.
And it is increasingly apparent that there are way, way too many people like that.
How can that be anything but institutional rape?
Yeah, talk about coming between you and your doctor…
No need. That’s my ground state of being.
Has the mandatory ultrasound bill been signed by the governor yet? I’m thinking of calling the governor’s office and telling them that Virginia won’t be on my family’s vacation itinerary if the bill becomes law.
And are rape victims exempt? I seriously doubt it. But then the tea party don’t usually seem bothered about inflicting unnecessary pain.
As I watched this video, my mouth dropped open, literally, and I could almost FEEL my blood pressure rising. How anyone can possibly vote for these fascist control freaks, I don’t know.
The small government party… Right.
It is institutional rape, but it doesn’t matter, because any woman seeking an abortion has already had sex. The right will have finally succeeded in giving me government so small, it will fit in my vagina. Thank you GOP for being honest in your opinion about the worthlessness of women, and my sympathy for all those self-loathing women (and there can be no other reason they’d agree to this) who have said, “Yes, master. If that’s what you want, that’s what I want.”
Deen writes:
The healthcare reform debate continuously revealed massive amounts of psychological projection from conservative Christians who vocally opposed
the black Democratic presidenthealthcare finance reform.Ed forgot to add the additional insult that an amendment that would have doctors ask for women’s consent to be probed was voted down … pretty much along party lines.
The small-government GOP are now all about being so small that it force a doctor to violate a woman.
Let’s do a comparison of the definition of rape with what the law requires. Let’s see:
* Abuse of authority: check
* Coersion: check
* Person incapable of valid consent: check
* Sexual assault: check
Well, at least the VA GOP are being compassionate*.
*GOP Compassion: Do what the GOP want, and they will be compassionate to you. Do anything else, and you’re worth less than spit and deserve as much compassion.
sheila said
“And are rape victims exempt?”
never even thought of that. Here are two issues.
The ultrasound is to be done so the woman “knows” what she about to do. What if she just closes her eyes and doesn’t look at it. How can someone legally MAKE her look at it?
Women have to pay for the procedure under this law. How can you make someone pay for a procedure that they did not ask for and do not want. That would be like requiring people that who get open heart surgery also have to have a face lift, and they have to pay for it.
The fact that the ultrasound is an unecessary procedure in the case of abortions makes it medical malpractice to perform it.
Will the people who provide women’s health care be required by law to proove that they administered the ultrasound first? I imagine alot of the backlash will come from them.
Also according to one article, the press was effectively nil as the bill went through. This thing is gonna blow up in these asshole’s faces. I live in Va. and folks are emailng me about this pretty frequently. It’s kinda like we heard about it when you did
As reported elsewhere on FreeThoughtBlogs:
FWIW, I just did call the governor’s office and told the lady who answered the phone that I wanted to express my opposition to the law and to call on Governor McConnell not to sign the bill.
What about when the doctor is a fellow woman, you know, a professional woman who is doing what she does because she cares about health issues concerning, you know, other women? This doctor could be forced to violate a sister?
They do not have my sympathy, nor do I think they’re self-loathing. I strongly suspect that they simply believe that they will never need abortion services, because they’re not like those other women, the sluts and whores.
@ashleybell @17: I fail to see how that’s worse than forcing a man to do it. I can assure you that if someone said to me “Go ram this probe into that row of assholes belonging to people who really don’t want you to,” then I wouldn’t feel worse about violating the men simply because I also have a penis.
Not sure if you were being hyperbolic or had seen this, but apparently one of the supporters of this used this exact justification in a private conversation
The FBI’s revised definition of rape:
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
Yep. That’s institutional rape. Is conspiracy to commit rape a crime in Virginia?
As I understand it, if the woman refuses to look at the screen, the doctor is required to describe the image to her. Yeah, they got all the bases covered.
I’m pretty damn uninformed about what an invasive ultrasound involves. Does it actually involve something being inserted? Every ultrasound I’ve seen just has some gel rubbed on the baby belly followed by the ultrasound device going over it like a little camera.
Sorry for my lack of understanding, I just haven’t experienced it myself.
Rip Steakface:
The bill requires an ultrasound to determine the age of the fetus. The only way to do this in the first trimester is with a procedure called a “transvaginal ultrasound”, which does require inserting a probe into the woman’s vagina.
The method of ultrasound you described with the probe being pressured against the woman’s belly can only be used for this purpose in later stages of development.
Since most abortions are performed during the first trimester, this means that the former procedure is going to see a lot of use.
The invasiveness of the ultrasound depends on the level of detail and the progress of the pregnancy. In order to get an abortion at the stage that most women get abortions, the ultrasound will have to be performed by inserting a wand into the vagina. It’s bad enough for a healthy woman who just wants to put off having babies for a couple of years to have to go through. It’s obviously worse for a woman trying to get past the trauma of being raped. Guilt tripping people for making responsible, rational, healthy decisions is cruel and vile.
You know, outside of some highly contrived, science-fiction-esque situation where rigid, tightly managed authoritarian control over reproduction becomes necessary for the protection of the species, I find it hard to imagine a realistic situation where giving people greater control over their reproductive choices doesn’t benefit pretty much the entire world at the individual, societal, and population levels. When I have gotten into discussions with antiabortionists in the past, that’s the level that I try to keep the discussion at. It’s all well and good to have an opinion about the morality of the choice, but “It’s just wrong!” is not a viable public policy. That’s why I find the youtube videos where people go to antiabortion protests and ask what the protesters feel would be an appropriate punishment for a woman who seeks an abortion to be so useful. If you can’t answer that question, then you don’t have a coherent position on the matter.
@ Rip Steakface:
Vaginal ultrasound: http://www.medicalvideos.us/play.php?vid=2538
Yes, it is a medical procedure video, and as such is not likely to be safe for work. But you will see the entire procedure and the images that show up on the monitor.
(BTW, I doubt that the Baroque chamber music will be likely accompaniment.)
@19 Yes, I’d seen it. And he isn’t the only one holding that opinion.
Cue James O’Keefe and his female minions in a entrapment scheme. “Oh, doctor, I need an abortion. What can I do to keep you from doing that awful ultrasound?”
@ 22: At the stage that most abortions occur, the fetal mass is too small to be clearly seen with the usual external ultrasound on the baby bump. The probe has to get closer and the only way to do that is to stick it up the vagina.
Rip Steakface @ 22:
I had to have two done to check for ovarian cysts. It’s like being raped with the icy cock of satan. The first one was done by a male tech, so there was a female “observer” in the room to make sure nothing assault-y was going on. (Besides the fact that this complete stranger was shoving a huge lubed wand up my hoo-ha.) The second one was done by a woman, but it was still embarrassing, uncomfortable, etc. Hearing about these men wanting to require women to have this procedure done…I don’t know whether to cry or throw up.
I’m posting this comment in a few places because I’d like to know what people think.
I think it’s time to organize a sex boycott. If your man is in favor of punishing women for having sex (pro-forced vaginal ultrasounds, anti-contraceptive, pro-personhood for sperm, anti-abortion, etc.) then don’t have sex with him. Problem solved. Hey, they’re all in favor of abstinence, right?
Disclaimer: I realize not all women have the kind of power necessary to pull off a sex boycott, but many do! Imagine the impact if all the wives whose husbands voted for these bills announced that contraceptives would no longer be necessary in their households.
Does this give new meaning to the advetising campaign: “Virginia is for Lovers?”
I’ve had several of these done due to “advanced maternal age” when I got pregnant, and also the subsequent miscarriages. It’s very unpleasant, even when you’re expecting it and consenting. I can’t imagine being forced to do it just to check off some arbitrary box on some idiot’s list.
…this really only makes sense if one supposes that sex is something women only do for the sake of their male partners.
I’m sorry if that’s been your experience.
KathyO,
There is so much wrong with that. First of all, nobody should have sex when they don’t want to for whatever reason, so I’m absolutely not telling you or anyone else to have sex. But here’s what is wrong with the sex boycott idea:
1) By punishing men, women will be punishing themselves too. Most women enjoy sex just as much as most men do.
2) Sex isn’t and shouldn’t be something that women give to men in exchange for desired behavior. It’s one thing to decide you won’t have sex with someone for X reason, but it’s entirely different to say “Change X and I’ll reward you with sex”. Sex isn’t a prize to be won.
3) On that note, setting it up like that frames in a way that aligns with rape culture. What if the man changes his professed beliefs about abortion, and the woman in his life still doesn’t feel like having sex? He’ll feel entitled to it, and even if he doesn’t rape her, he’ll turn into a whiny Nice Guy(TM) who feels entitled to sex if he performs the correct ritual.
4) Following on that, if a man does claim to change his attitude about abortion in that context, it could never really be sincere. Men should be accepting of choice in abortion and birth control because it’s the right thing to do, not because they just want to be rewarded with sex.
5) In our society, women have some power. Further, feminist men have power too. We don’t need to resort to this, and even if it was our only option, it wouldn’t be a good idea. We need to fight for power in our own democratic society rather than fighting just for abortion rights.
6) Even if this were a somehow credible idea, you’re really preaching to the wrong crowd because very few sincere readers here are women with controlling, misogynist spouses.
Given that the procedure is effectively rape, surely the doctors are not going to allow this to happen? As soon as one procedure is carried out, and the doctor charged with rape, it all ends, surely? This is aside from the moral obligations they have to their patients. I can’t see it actually happening, law or no law.
What is the AMAs stand on this?
Does the AMA have the authority to advise doctors not to obey this law?
Does the AMA have the authority to demand that doctors not obey this law?
If a doctor doesn’t follow this law and the state follows through to punish him/her, will the AMA stand by this doctor?
It seems inevitable that doctors would be charged with rape. Someone will do it. What other legal recourse would you have that didn’t keep you in the courts for so long you couldn’t get the abortion in the first place? You’d have to wait until after the sonogram, get the abortion, and then file charges. If you refuse the procedure then you can’t get abortion unless you leave the state or find someone to perform it “illegally”.
Grr I wish they could charge every politician who voted for this with conspiracy to commit rape.
Azkyroth:
Well, there are plenty of anti-choice women out there. Your plan wouldn’t really work for those people lol. But really, if someone is stupid enough to be married to a person who thinks like this, then they are probably also stupid enough to agree with them.
Oh woops sorry Az, I misquoted you. I mean KathyO.
There’s no need for a sex boycott. Try some good old psychological abuse.
@Bananacat and others
Yeah, I think you guys are right about the sex boycott. It would unnecessarily punish the wrong people.
Back to the drawing board.
Virginia seems to have declared war on women. So much for “Virginia is for lovers.” Virginia is for woman haters.
Requiring this invasive procedure as a precondition for exercising a constitutional right is so vile that … honestly, I cannot think of any adequate way to express my disgust. How can a legislator–elected to represent the people–vote for such a thing and still look in the mirror every morning without puking? What possible explanation can be advanced for this hideous law? What kind of filthy pervert could even imagine it, much less vote for it?
More Overton window action. The more outrageous the ideas being floated at the periphery, the more the window of public opinion shifts so that milder versions of the outrageous idea become acceptable to the mainstream. Faux News and Rush Limbaugh float horrific and outrageous ideas to a massive audience, and the middle ground moves further and further rightward into territory that a few years back was beyond the lunatic fringe. If the sane world cannot mount a coordinated action against this kind of lunacy, the window will just keep shifting until we find ourselves grappling with fascism. (Really, how far are we from that when they’re talking about involuntary invasive procedures with no medical rationale?)
What defense can they possibly give for only targeting women? Aren’t the fathers of (presumably) illegitimate children equally responsible? How about a law that says these fathers will be hunted down and placed in indentured servitude to meet their obligations to their children?
Thanks for the exceedingly friendly responses to my ignorance on the matter.
Yeah, no two ways about this – mandatory invasive ultrasounds? Institutionalized rape. That has to be some sort of crime against humanity.
[...] You get state legislatures passing a bill that could ban birth control and a bill that forces women … [...]
Are these laws even Constitutional? I think “personhood” laws are not considered so, under Roe v. Wade, but what about this ultrasound law?
As an aside, are attempts at passing these anti-women laws becoming more common, or is it that with the advent of the internet, they’re simply becoming more visible?
I would honestly be less opposed to it.
As would I. At least there would be a skeleton of justice beneath the chain mail of brutality.
No invasive prostate examinations?!