Obama Continues to Undermine Constitutional Safeguards »« Valerie Pokorny Doesn’t Speak for Women

Loesch: Government-Mandated Rape = Consensual Sex

Dana Loesch, the absolutely vile radio show host and CNN contributor, dropped this bombshell while discussing the proposed Virginia law that would require transvaginal sonograms for any woman seeking an abortion:

LOESCH: That’s the big thing that progressives are trying to say, that it’s rape and so on and so forth. [...] There were individuals saying, “Oh what about the Virginia rape? The rapes that, the forced rapes of women who are pregnant?” What? Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.

Imagine that. Women didn’t have any problem having consensual sex, so why should they be opposed to the government mandating that something be forced into her vagina against her will. This woman should be absolutely ashamed of herself, but I’m sure she’s not.

Comments

  1. ischemgeek says

    I was going to make a wisecrack along the lines of, “Because as everyone knows, only virgins can be raped!”

    … then I realized that some of these morons would probably agree with me on it.

    The world is a scary place.

  2. Randomfactor says

    Wonder if she’d be in favor of outlawing colonoscopies, since they’re just like…well, you know.

  3. Pierce R. Butler says

    “The rapes that, the forced rapes of women who are pregnant?” What? Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.

    Seems to me she’s saying the pregnant survivors of “forced rape” had no problem – which shows that CNN is catching up to False Noise in both sheer nastiness and blatant counterfactuality.

    Who wants to start a betting pool on how long until Loesch gets her own show?

  4. Captain Mike says

    This reminds me of the time I got stabbed in an alleyway. My attacked pointed out that I didn’t seem to mind so much when my surgeon did it.

  5. lofgren says

    The logic here is really astounding. I have no problem eating a cheeseburger now and then, but I think I would have a problem with being forcefed one. I have no problem performing a bit of transvaginal penetration on my wife every now and again, but I would have a problem with somebody else forcing it on her. Thousands of right-wingers have no objection to buying healthcare, but they object to the government forcing them to buy it. As cynical as I am I find it difficult to believe that anybody with a sliver of reason couldn’t see how absurd this claim is. If you have ever consented to something that you would not enjoy having forced on you, you must understand how idiotic and dishonest this is.

  6. d cwilson says

    It’s often said that in many middle eastern countries, rape is not a crime, it’s a punishment.

    That’s the same mindset Loesch is displaying here. She’s not the first person to say that women who have had sex shouldn’t object to being forced to have objects inserted into their vaginas. Apparently, at least one member of the Virginia state legislature said the same thing when the bill was being discussed. What they really mean is, these women are Dirty Sluts ™ and the need to be punished for their dirty, dirty behavior. When your kid misbehaves, you don’t listen to them whine about having to take their medicine, amirite?

  7. Chiroptera says

    I have to admit: Loesch’s honesty is refreshing. I remember when the Right Wing tried to pretend that it was about protecting the “innocent unborn babies.”

  8. lofgren says

    So this is sort of like making your kid smoke the whole pack of cigarettes to teach them the dangers of smoking?

  9. says

    Dana Loesch:
    “The rapes that, the forced rapes of women who are pregnant?” What? Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.”

    I read this as meaning: “They had no problem being raped so why should they mind an ultra-sound?” I mean, what else can it mean?

    Loesch is so deep into extreme wingnut dogma that she has lost touch with reality. She is batshit loony-tunes crazy.

  10. says

    Stunning. Can you imagine what would happen if for some reason they forced mandatory colonoscopies on men? The fact that people do not see this as anything other than the most personal of violations can only mean they have their head in the sand.

  11. Chiroptera says

    Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.

    Did she really just say that making love with someone you care about is pretty much like having a nameless technician probe you against your will for no good reason?

  12. ArtK says

    @ Chiroptera

    Did she really just say that making love with someone you care about is pretty much like having a nameless technician probe you against your will for no good reason?

    Yup. And for Loesch and her fellow travelers, that’s about the extent of it. They want to rob sex of any aspect of joy — they want to reduce it to a technical act for the purpose of procreation. Anything pleasurable is a sin to her.

    Who said “fundamentalism is the fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun”?

  13. Rasmus Odinga Gambolputty de von Ausfern....of Ulm says

    What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to do to equate consensual sex with invasive, unnecessary probing? I wonder how many fucktards were nodding their heads in agreement with this logic.

    psst…Dana…if you think of sex as a “procedure”, then you are definitely doing it wrong.

  14. jeevmon says

    Rape is the one crime in which the victim is often viewed as having done something to “deserve” it, like dressing inappropriately, drinking, being known as promiscuous, etc. This strain of thought is particularly prevalent among conservatives because the behavior in which the victim is alleged to have engaged violates traditional norms of how women should behave. So it’s not surprising that for someone like Loesch, the issue of pregnancy arising from rape is basically non-existent. And even whether there should be a rape exception to a proposed prohibition on abortion is becoming contested territory; Rick Santorum doesn’t think there should be one.

    As a broader point, those willing to disregard their gender, sexual orientation, and/or ethnicity to argue against their own rights can always find paychecks. Dana Loesch is just an example of that.

  15. harold says

    Of mild interest, Dana Loesch claims to have “been a liberal” who “became a conservative because of 9/11″.

    That doesn’t really seem to fit here…

  16. cptdoom says

    @Harold – you don’t understand, it makes perfect sense. You see, the passengers on those hijacked planes never complained when any other pilots flew them. Hell, according to Loesch the passengers on United 93 should have “laid back and enjoyed it.”

    What? It makes as much sense as what Dana said.

  17. otrame says

    Hey, I’ve had a transvaginal ultrasound–for legitimate medical reasons, of course–and I can tell you, it is nothing even remotely like sex. It’s not grossly unpleasant in such a setting, but it ain’t sex. But then I have this bizarre notion that sex is more than putting something in a woman’s vagina.

    Seriously, in my opinion, if this procedure, which is not medically indicated, is performed it is malpractice. I think the doctors in Virginia need to get together and refuse to commit malpractice.

    If they won’t I strongly suggest every single women forced to have the procedure done in order to get an abortion should sue the hell out of everyone involved.

  18. Stella says

    I have had a transvaginal ultrasound. It is nothing like sexual intercourse. It is nothing like routine OB GYN exams.

    It is very much like having a novice driver try repeatedly to parallel park a 1948 Hudson in your lower abdomen.

    Stella

  19. DaveL says

    If they keep it up like this I’m going to have to seriously rethink going in for a prostate exam when I turn 40.

  20. ehmm says

    The conversation has really gone off the rails in this country.

    Loesch’s comments are incoherent and vile, of that there is no doubt. That argument could used to justify the rape of any sexually active person.

    “you didn’t mind it when your husband put it in you, so why should you mind when a perfect stranger does it?”

    There’s a part of me that actually wants idiots like this to amp it up to all they want. People should hear exactly how crazy they sound.

    However…

    I’m a as against this law as anyone who posts on this site, but “rape”? Seriously?

  21. ShowMetheData says

    transvaginal ultrasound = rape + “procedure” done in room
    = Rape-room

    The U.S. needs to invade!

  22. Chiroptera says

    ehmn, #23: I’m a as against this law as anyone who posts on this site, but “rape”? Seriously?

    I dunno. But it is an physically invasive procedure done for the sole purpose of humiliating the victim.

  23. ehmm says

    Chiroptera #25

    I’d go further than that.

    Physically invasive, uncomfortable, humiliating and costly (I assume the woman is on the hook for paying for this). A cruel, stupid law that is utterly indifferent to the well being of the patient and is designed only to waste time and make it more difficult to get an abortion. I just think its a bit hyperbolic to compare it to “rape”.

  24. F says

    ehmm, I don’t think it is hyperbolic, or even a comparison for that matter. It is rape. It’s a sexual assault, not a metaphor. The government is the rapist, and the person doing the procedure is an accessory at the least.

    If you unnecessarily insert something into a woman who is completely brain dead, it’s still rape. If you inset a plunger handle into man in a NYPD holding cell for abusive purposes, it’s still rape. This completely unnecessary and invasive medical procedure done in a completely unnecessary manner is rape.

  25. says

    However…

    I’m a as against this law as anyone who posts on this site, but “rape”? Seriously?

    If the government required someone to shove something up your cock hole what would you call it?

    Yes it’s rape.

  26. says

    As a long-term vagina-owner I’ve had some experience with the insertion of objects. I’m fortunate that I’ve never experienced it against my will, even though some of the speculums were a tad chilly back in the old days. Having anything inserted against my will would certainly count as rape. The idea of bureaucratic coercion rather than violence only increases the horror to me – a violent crime is random bad luck, but this is to be done in clean rooms in cold blood. Seriously chilling. Shades of Gilead.

  27. uzza says

    RAPE =
    (1) “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, … without the consent of the victim,”
    —US Department of Justice

    (2) “sexual intercourse with any other person … against the complaining witness’s will” Penalty: 5 years to life imprisonment
    —Virginia State Code: 18.2-61

    INANIMATE OBJECT SEXUAL PENETRATION = Penetration of the vagina or rectum with any object by force and against the will of the victim.
    Penalty: 5 years to life imprisonment
    —Virginia State Code 18.2-67.2

  28. ehmm says

    Alethea H. Claw #29 & uzza #31

    Thank you very much. Well done.

    F #27

    I guess the difference for me is that I don’t see a sadistic or sexual domination fantasy being served by this. I also don’t see the consensual analogue being considered mere sex. e.g. A woman, not related to this issue, going in to have this procedure done as part of a normal pregnancy she intends to carry to term, we would not consider that “sex”. Maybe that’s a consequence of the broadness of the definition or maybe that’s just a limitation in me.

    We Are Ing #28

    I’ll be up all night pondering the definition of “cock hole”. Does that refer to my urethra or is the implication that I’m regularly the recipient of anal sex? If it’s the latter, the answer is no, though I have had fingers up there (as part of a medical procedure of course). It was wholly unpleasant and, well, I have to admit there was a lot of crying. I just gritted my teeth and maybe even chuckled a bit, but the doctor just couldn’t control himself. He was inconsolable.

  29. N. Nescio says

    “Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.”

    Sounds an awful lot like something a male guard in an Iran women’s’ prison would say.

  30. sunsangnim says

    It’s bad enough when male priests or wanna-be priests (Rick Santorum) spew such nonsense. If you want to be generous, you could excuse it as sheer ignorance. But how much must a woman be paid to take such a vile and inhumane position against women? Or is it some kind of fundy brainwashing?

  31. shadowwalkyr says

    “Who said ‘fundamentalism is the fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun’?”

    H.L. Mencken, who used the term “puritanism” specifically. However, in this instance, I’m pretty certain there isn’t a practical difference.

    I haven’t been able to track down a source for the quote, though, or I’d cite it.

  32. Azkyroth says

    However…

    I’m a as against this law as anyone who posts on this site, but “rape”? Seriously?

    Penetrating someone without their consent is rape.

    What part of this confuses you?

  33. Azkyroth says

    I guess the difference for me is that I don’t see a sadistic or sexual domination fantasy being served by this.

    …why do you think these fuckers passed the law, stupid?

    Not that this should matter to the definition of rape.

  34. says

    sunsangnim, the reason women do it is the same as the reason that any subordinate in a hierarchy does it. We don’t all respond the same way to the same problem; there are heroes and hiders and resisters and escapers and quislings and kapos and Judas goats and trusties and prefects and Uncle Toms in any system of inequality. Women are no less varied then men in this.

  35. ehmm says

    Azkyroth #38

    Are you seriously arguing that the Virginia passed this law so the lawmakers could reach sexual climax or because they get satisfaction from torturing people? I’m not using those terms in a general way, if that wasn’t clear. Regardless of how wrong headed this is, I seriously doubt that is their motivation.

    Not that this should matter to the definition of rape.

    I agree, but I’m against these sonogram bills period, regardless of the orifice that’s used, if at all.

    Also, in case it came across as sarcastic, the posts by Alethea H. Claw #29 & uzza #31 are actually changing my opinion on this.

  36. dingojack says

    Azkyroth – “Penetrating someone without their consent is rape“.

    Ah no, no it isn’t. Let’s get accurate here.

    Look at the definitions given by uzza (#31). Getting your ears syringed for wax, inserting a catheter or getting a mouth-swab to collect DNA isn’t rape (no vaginas or anuses involved, no sexual intent) even if it is not consensual.

    Having said that, like any invasive surgical procedure, the hospital or medical staff would have to show either:
    a) informed consent was obtained from the patient (or patient’s proxy), or
    b) medical necessity when informed consent was not possible (due the patient being unconscious and in imminent danger of death for example).

    If vaginas are involved (and here they are) then under US Federal and Virginia State laws it is classified as rape, unless there is informed consent or medical necessity. Since neither condition is fulfilled then rape statues apply.

    Anyone know if one can commit rape under duress?

    Dingo

  37. Azkyroth says

    Are you seriously arguing that the Virginia passed this law so the lawmakers could reach sexual climax or because they get satisfaction from torturing people?

    Yes, it is abundantly clear that the laws were passed because they desire to cause suffering and humiliation to “sluts” to punish them.

    Ah no, no it isn’t. Let’s get accurate here.

    Oh for fuck’s sake you know what I meant.

  38. says

    ehmm @32: I guess the difference for me is that I don’t see a sadistic or sexual domination fantasy being served by this.

    Rape is not merely about individuals fulfilling sadistic fantasies. It is also sometimes used by groups as a tool to demoralize and terrorize political opponents and minority populations (see Africa for recent examples). While the individual perpetrators might enjoy their “work” that is secondary to the political aim of terrorizing their targets.

    A slightly closer analogy to this Virginia business though, might be so called “corrective rape” in which lesbians are raped (sometimes at the behest of their families) in an attempt to “cure” them.

  39. dingojack says

    Azkyroth – yes I did know what you were saying.
    But if we’re going to pay out enough rope to hang these fuckwits, we’ve gotta do it so it’s all nice and legal.
    A ‘Texas Necktie Party’ isn’t going to work here.
    Dingo
    —–
    A metaphor about boiling frogs comes to mind

  40. ryan says

    Sigh… just never ever get the the bottom of the pit. The moment I think people can’t sink any lower someone comes along and suprises me. Frankly I’ve had enough of it.

  41. matty1 says

    ehmm @32: I guess the difference for me is that I don’t see a sadistic or sexual domination fantasy being served by this.

    I don’t think we should judge what is a rape by the perpetrators motives. That would let off a lot of rapists who say, and may genuinely think, that the victim “didn’t mean it” when she refused consent.

  42. says

    I’m a as against this law as anyone who posts on this site, but “rape”? Seriously?

    So if I coerce you into having a medically unnecessary colonoscopy against your will in order to have a… I dunno… tonsillectomy, that’s what… a date?

  43. uzza says

    GRR, how do I make my name a hyperlink? Anyhow, Jill Vogel, the senator who pushed this, is an attorney. Here is my letter to her:

    Dear Senator Vogel

    Thank you for reading this letter, and for your efforts on behalf of the state of Virginia. We are trying to understand your new bill SB484, but not being Attorneys ourselves is a hindrance. With your background in Law we are sure you are fully aware of all relevant legal issues and hope you can take the time to clarify them for us.

    Since your bill mandates an opportunity to view “the ultrasound image of her fetus”, and the fetal stage of development doesn’t begin until the tenth week, will the woman be forced to carry the zygote until then in order that the ultrasound can be possible? If the embryo has not developed into a fetus at the time the probe were performed, would the woman be subjected to a later, second probe?

    Additional confusion arises in that we have been unable to find a legal definition in VA case law for the term “sexual intercourse”. Lacking that, we are unable to know if your bill mandates the crime of Rape (§ 18.2-61) or the crime of “Inanimate Object Sexual Penetration” (§ 18.2-67.2 ), nor are we sure under what statutes the State can force a medical professional to commit either of these criminal acts.

    On behalf of women everywhere, we anxiously await your reply.
    Thank you.

  44. Chiroptera says

    ehmn, #32: I guess the difference for me is that I don’t see a sadistic or sexual domination fantasy being served by this.

    Huh. Maybe it’s just me, but that’s the main thing that I do see in this.

  45. lofgren says

    Anyone know if one can commit rape under duress?

    I believe the person applying the duress is actually raping both parties. If you say “Rape that person or I will blow your brains out,” you are the perpetrator, not your victims. You are merely using one of the victims as a tool to penetrate the other.

  46. lordshipmayhem says

    If I were an insurance company covering the doctors, I would be advising them that as this is not a medically required procedure, and that performing this procedure under these conditions constitutes malpractice, to obey the government constitutes malpractice and their coverage would become void.

    If I were a district attorney, I’d be charging everyone who voted for this measure with practicing medicine without a license, unless the legislator in question was an M.D. In those rare individuals’ cases, it would be criminal malpractice.

    Of course in a perfect world, anyone misogynistic enough to propose such odious regulations would be a poe.

  47. ehmm says

    leni #47

    Go back and read the subsequent posts. That ground has already been covered, but it does bring up a good point: It is common enough that men and women are subjected to cavity searches, regardless of their wishes. What do we consider that?

    Chiroptera #50, Azkyroth #42
    Really? Not motivated by some vague notion that life begins at conception and it is entitled to protection no matter what? That the Lord imbues that clump of cells with a soul the moment the sperm and egg meet? That the wishes of the mother are simply not a consideration? No? Fine, in your next posts, link to an article that talks about how there are Virginia lawmakers that get sexually aroused or orgasm every time this is done to a woman. Show me the interview where one of these guys says “Yeah, there was a much less invasive process, but we picked this one because, well, she deserves it and it’s just really, really hot”.

    The easiest way to get dismissed in an argument is to accuse your enemy of having motives you cannot prove. Like I said in my first post, the conversation is going off the rails.

  48. Azkyroth says

    Really? Not motivated by some vague notion that life begins at conception and it is entitled to protection no matter what? That the Lord imbues that clump of cells with a soul the moment the sperm and egg meet? That the wishes of the mother are simply not a consideration?

    This procedure doesn’t stop anyone from having an abortion. It merely makes doing so humiliating, painful, and unnecessarily complicated. There is no plausible purpose for forcing this except to “punish” the women and it is well-established that the behavior of anti-choicers in general is extremely inconsistent with the beliefs you naively attribute to them and extremely consistent with a desire to punish women who have sex.

    Or, I suppose you don’t believe Charles Manson is guilty, either, since he hasn’t come out and said so?

    No? Fine, in your next posts, link to an article that talks about how there are Virginia lawmakers that get sexually aroused or orgasm every time this is done to a woman. Show me the interview where one of these guys says “Yeah, there was a much less invasive process, but we picked this one because, well, she deserves it and it’s just really, really hot”.

    There is no reason whatsoever to restrict the interpretation of “sadism” or “domination” in this fashion.

    The easiest way to get dismissed in an argument is to accuse your enemy of having motives you cannot prove. Like I said in my first post, the conversation is going off the rails.

    Willful misreading, hyperliteralism, and the deliberate introduction of impossible levels of proof are arguably easier, at least in debates among reasonable people.

  49. ehmm says

    Azkyroth #54

    “Hyperliteralism”? how about just “literalism”. As I said in my previous post

    “Are you seriously arguing that the Virginia passed this law so the lawmakers could reach sexual climax or because they get satisfaction from torturing people? I’m not using those terms in a general way, if that wasn’t clear.

    What part of that don’t you fucking understand?

    apparently none of it becasue your response was:

    “Yes, it is abundantly clear that the laws were passed because they desire to cause suffering and humiliation to “sluts” to punish them.”

    Don’t fucking blame me if I’m trying not to be as sloppy with terminology as you are.

  50. Chiroptera says

    ehmn, #53: Not motivated by some vague notion that life begins at conception and it is entitled to protection no matter what?

    Exactly right.

    Now, that is the justification they gave years ago, and I suspect that some sincerely believe that this is what motivates them today.

    But I think the recent rhetoric and policy proposals (for example, eliminating or restricting all methods of contraception) have made it very clear what this is all about: shaming, humiliating, and, if possible, placing a heavy, long term burdon on women for daring to have sex for pleasure, especially shaming unmarried women for having sex.

    When policies go beyond merely protecting a fetus after conception, I have a hard time believing that it is really about protecting “unborn babies.”

    When the rhetoric includes language that indicates a deep hatred for what they consider improper behavior, I have a hard time believing that their deepest issues are just about protecting life.

    I don’t know anyway to figure out whether a person is being disingenuous in their stated claims except by examining the actual actions. And the increasingly bizarre statements and actions of the pro-life camp just isn’t consistent with wanting to merely protect “life” once it is conceived.

  51. kermit. says

    As a baby Southern Baptist, I saw these folks up close and personal for all-too many years. I remember folks speaking with glee of being able to watch the torture of the unbelievers for all of eternity; they apparently thought of Hell as sort of a Grand Canyon, with rails to support the visitors. I guess sometimes you just need a break from telling God how wonderful and awesome he is.

    I can’t think of any public “pro-life” folks who support ready access to birth control information and materials. Cultures that do provide these have young people who have less sex, and if they do, they girl or woman is less likely to get pregnant. And if she does, she is less likely to have an abortion. Pre-revolutionary Romania had the highest abortion rate in Europe, even though it was a felony. So-called pro-life policies yield more dead blastocysts and fetuses.

    The biblical literalists I grew up with loved nothing so much as an excuse to punish. Such joy and smug satisfaction. I suppose there are other explanations for this, but I see a cluster of behaviors, from rape as punishment, to honor killings, to wife abuse, to violent exorcisms, which indicate a motive in which a lifetime of anger drives a passion for punishment. It’s true we never *really know other people’s motives, but even dogs have been shown to be very good at knowing a human’s emotions (better than wolves or chimps). Surely other humans are not totally clueless.

    Everything we know is contingent on continuous evidential support. Doesn’t mean we don’t know anything.

  52. ehmm says

    #56, #57

    All good points. There are a couple of parallel threads here that I’ll address individually.

    As to the rape question, my thinking has actually shifted on this. I could agree that it is rape in the sense of the legal definitions presented earlier and that coercion is being employed to force the woman to submit to this. But I can think of one possible objection that I don’t know how to resolve. As I mentioned before: Cavity searches.

    There are situations where cavity searches are not only common but routine. This procedure is definitely invasive, uncomfortable, humiliating and even degrading. You could reasonably call it a personal violation & there could even be situations where a sadistic someone goes too far in performing this and we would call that a sexual assault. However, we do not categorically refer to this procedure as “rape”.

    So if the argument is “I object to this because it is government sanctioned rape” and the rebuttal is “It’s not rape at all, it’s a cavity search”, How does one respond to this? One could say that it’s still wrong because its obscene to treat women like criminals by forcing them to submit to cavity searches, and they’d be right, but that does nothing to establish that this procedure is tantamount to rape. So how?

    As to the motivation question, I can think of a few friends, people I consider generally intelligent and have reasonably well thought out positions that I have some pretty strong disagreements with. I have successfully argued the importance of comprehensive sex education with them (though we were probably not too far apart to begin with) and we have similar opinions on pre-marital sex and birth control.

    However, there are places (an objection to the morning after pill being labelled “birth control” was a recent example) where we just can’t find common ground. I could mention that it’s absurd to think that a clump of a few hundred undifferentiated cells has interests that trump those of a mature human female; that there is no individual there because everything we are is between the ears and there isn’t even the rudiments of a brain or a mind to speak of at that stage; that there is no guarantee of viability or even certainty that sperm and egg have even met at that stage (anyone can feel free to correct me on this if I have something wrong). They don’t care. in their mind, it’s life and it has rights. While I thought there were times where they were certainly a bit oblivious to the well being of the woman, I never got the impression from them that they took some sadistic pleasure in the woman being punished for their irresponsibility or immoral behavior. Then again, I’m from Canada and live in Wisconsin, so maybe I haven’t been exposed to many of those types. Either way, I’m not ready to go out on that limb unless I’m absolutely sure. This is all moot anyway if the intentions are not a factor in determining rape, as others have pointed out.

  53. Azkyroth says

    “Are you seriously arguing that the Virginia passed this law so the lawmakers could reach sexual climax or because they get satisfaction from torturing people? I’m not using those terms in a general way, if that wasn’t clear.”

    I repeat, you dumb sack of shit, that there is no REASON to suddenly arbitrarily decide not to use those terms in a general way when fucking everyone else is, except to try to stack the deck of an argument in your favor out of sheer fucking pettiness.

    At which point you’ve already lost, just like a boxer who strides into the ring and promptly wets himself.

    Given that….

  54. ehmm says

    “suddenly” Holy shit.

    My very first post on this thread, as well as all the subsequent posts has been about the precision of the language we are using. About taking at least a little care in choosing our terms. Based on some of the responses I’ve gotten, there are people here who can figure this out. You, for some reason cannot. Also,You will notice that the name calling has all been one way until now.

    But, some assholes like to have the last word so knock yourself out. Oh, and feel free to declare victory again if it makes you feel big or something. What was it?
    “like a boxer who strides into the ring and promptly wets himself.”
    Very clever. I’ll have to tell my mom about that one.

    -m

    p.s. Fuck yourself, Asshole.

  55. says

    So if the argument is “I object to this because it is government sanctioned rape” and the rebuttal is “It’s not rape at all, it’s a cavity search”, How does one respond to this?

    A cavity search on what possible grounds or with what possible probable cause?

    Perhaps Virginia legislators should try getting individual search warrants if this is the argument they are making. Also, you don’t need a sonogram to do a cavity search, there is nothing criminal occurring and therefore no reason to collect evidence in order to protect the public interest or peace.

  56. says

    Also, for your edification:

    Unlike property searches, searches of travelers’ bodies are highly intrusive and implicate travelers’ most fundamental privacy and dignity interests.[23] Thus, before customs can order a traveler to disrobe, conduct an internal body cavity search, or force the traveler to submit to an involuntary x-ray of the traveler’s body, the customs officer must have reasonable suspicion to believe the search will reveal contraband, and may have to have a higher standard or court-reviewed warrant for some of the more invasive searches.[24]

    In the border search context, reasonable suspicion means that the facts known to the customs officer at the time of the search, combined with the officer’s reasonable inferences from those facts, provides the officer with a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that the search will reveal contraband. [25] To form a basis for reasonable suspicion, a customs officer may rely on his training and prior experience, and may rely on entirely innocent factors, if the totality of the circumstances provide the officer with reasonable suspicion.

    Emphasis added. I am using the border search example because this is one instance where the 4th Amendment doesn’t generally apply. And even then, even in that rather extreme curcumstance, there has to be some sort of reasonable suspicion of a crime.

    So far as I know, it is not illegal to be pregnant.

    Also, you may be overthinking this just a tad.

  57. ehmm says

    Also, you may be overthinking this just a tad.

    Absolutely. But I often get into discussions with people who take a view contrary to mine. It’s always helpful to be thinking a few moves ahead. It’s also a way to make sure I’m defending a defensible position.

    The way people sometimes poison the well these days by casually tossing off loaded terms really annoys me. The Right is most guilty of this but I see it with Liberals and moderates as well.

    Thanks.

  58. says

    You’re welcome, I guess?

    Still, I thought it was disturbing that you went to cavity searches for contraband when we are discussing access to legal, private medical care- not criminal activity.

    Why would you even go there? Is that distinction not obvious to you?

    Can you see why talking about female patients in this way is condescending and, yes, kind of offensive?

  59. ehmm says

    leni

    I’ll quote myself
    “This procedure is definitely invasive, uncomfortable, humiliating and even degrading. You could reasonably call it a personal violation & there could even be situations where a sadistic someone goes too far in performing this and we would call that a sexual assault. However, we do not categorically refer to this procedure as “rape”.

    So if the argument is “I object to this because it is government sanctioned rape” and the rebuttal is “It’s not rape at all, it’s a cavity search”, How does one respond to this? One could say that it’s still wrong because its obscene to treat women like criminals by forcing them to submit to cavity searches, and they’d be right, but that does nothing to establish that this procedure is tantamount to rape.”

    I wouldn’t for a moment say classifying this procedure as a cavity search makes it permissible. I was looking for a counter rebuttal to defend the rape accusation and a solid one did not spring to mind.

    It was not my intention to be condescending or offensive, but hashing this stuff out often means being frank in discussing it, yes? And if I may say so, the proponents of this kind of madness (the Virginia Law Makers, the idiot radio host who’s stupid comment started this thread) could not care less if their opponents feel offended or condescended to.

  60. says

    One could say that it’s still wrong because its obscene to treat women like criminals by forcing them to submit to cavity searches, and they’d be right, but that does nothing to establish that this procedure is tantamount to rape.

    I missed that, my bad.

    Still, I think you missed something important here as well.

    To recap:

    … its obscene to treat women like criminals by forcing them to submit to cavity searches… but that does nothing to establish that this procedure is tantamount to rape.

    You’ve left out some crucial details, indeed sanitized it. It should read:

    … its obscene to treat women like criminals by forcing them to submit to cavity searches as a prerequisite for obtaining safe, legal, and private medical care

    It isn’t a simple cavity search. It’s coercion. Coercion into having something inserted into your body against your will, against the advice of your doctors, with the single purpose of increasing your anxiety and expense, and as a prerequisite to further medical care.

    And you ignored this as if it were immaterial and argued that we should only consider the probing part of it while forgetting about the coercion. Consensual sex may not be so different than different from coercive sex either. Until you factor in the whole coercion thing. Get it?

    I see your omission of these facts as intensely problematic. If the police required every suspected criminal to undergo a cavity search as a condition of seeking access to legal council, what would you call that? I’d call it blackmail and probably state-sponsored rape.

    If I responded, “Well, what’s the big deal? People have to get cavity searches all the time?” Would you be wrong in chastising me for omitting the whole coercion part of it?

  61. ehmm says

    Leni.

    All good points.

    I’ll quote myself again from #58,

    As to the rape question, my thinking has actually shifted on this. I could agree that it is rape in the sense of the legal definitions presented earlier and that coercion is being employed to force the woman to submit to this. But I can think of one possible objection that I don’t know how to resolve. As I mentioned before: Cavity searches.

    I think it’s a bit unfair to suggest I omitted the coercive element of this. I just didn’t expand much on it because I thought it went without saying, so that’s my fault. Yes, clearly there is coercion going on. Call it blackmail too if you like. I agree with that completely. But it’s coercive either way isn’t it? I also don’t know that there is anything “simple” about cavity searches. This is something that’s controversial in it’s own right.

    Here’s where I’m coming from in all this:

    Rape is a very-close-second to murder in terms or the worst thing that can be done to an individual. It is a form of torture. It is the basest instincts of one human being overriding the will and well being of another. It is a gross perversion of one of the most important dimensions of human happiness and we are particularly outraged when it is employed as a tactic in war or as a political tool. An accusation of rape is something to be taken very seriously.

    Plus,

    The other side in this argument (people against reproductive rights, access to Birth control, sex education) are arguing from a sometimes principled but mostly emotional position. But these are arguments that have been honed and sharpened for decades. The Virginia law, plus regressive legislation in other state legislatures in the last year (the results of the 2010 elections) is just one example of something bigger. That is, on many fronts, they are winning the rhetorical war at the moment.

    Bearing those two things in mind, If I make the rape accusation & I’m arguing this with someone who disagrees with me (which I do often), I want to know, not think I know, that’s an argument I will win. I want to be thinking two steps ahead at all times, I want to be prepared for any objection and I don’t want to be on the back foot at any time. Otherwise, it’s just two people screaming at each other or it’s just like-minded people sitting around saying “Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it’s all fucked up.” Neither of these hold any interest for me.

  62. uzza says

    We don’t call cavity searches rape, eh? Some of us do. Why? Because we are sick of hearing how X {= cavity searches, ultrasounds, date rape, yada} is not {“rape”, real rape, rape-rape, tantamount to rape, ad nauseum} even though it FITS THE LEGAL DEFINITION of rape to a T. A definition that the DOJ has just updated to accord with current popular opinion BTW.

    A
    cavity search is not ‘tantamount to’ rape, it IS rape. Having settled that, possibly the state can show an overriding interest to justify doing it, just as they do with assault and murder, which they define as “unlawful killing”; the state can justify cops attacking and even killing people in defense of the common good. There may be cases, say drug smuggling, where they can justify rape in the form of a forced cavity search. There is no case they can justify rape during routine medical care.

    The
    law does justify using deadly force against an intruder inside your home, a position most likely agree with, so ask why the Castle Doctrine shouldn’t apply to an intruder inside your body. You’ll get a version of Loesch’s “sluts deserve it”.
    You
    noted that these assholes are “oblivious to the well-being of the” (citizen). Arguing that a not-yet-fetus embryo has rights that trump those of a citizen is a religious position that has no business being enshrined into law.

  63. ehmm says

    uzza #68

    First, this is the first time date rape has been mentioned. It is a serious issue but it has little to do with this discussion. Also, I will not have it said or even implied that I think date rape isn’t rape. Do not try to lump me in with those assholes.

    In the following paragraph, you claim the state can rape someone if they have “an overriding interest to justify doing it” Specifically in criminal, not medical contexts. Fine. Live with it. If there is no distinction to be made here, if it isn’t a matter of degree, why not just tell law enforcement and border protection to forget about the rubber gloves an put on condoms instead?

    The law does justify using deadly force against an intruder inside your home, a position most likely agree with, so ask why the Castle Doctrine shouldn’t apply to an intruder inside your body. You’ll get a version of Loesch’s “sluts deserve it”.

    In my first comment I said “I’m a as against this law as anyone who posts on this site”. In #26 I called it “A cruel, stupid law that is utterly indifferent to the well being of the patient”. In #40, “I’m against all of these sonogram bills, period.” You make an excellent point and you state it better than I could have, but I don’t know who you think you are arguing against here.

    You noted that these assholes are “oblivious to the well-being of the” (citizen). Arguing that a not-yet-fetus embryo has rights that trump those of a citizen is a religious position that has no business being enshrined into law.

    Me in #58, talking about a recent morning after pill argument I had with someone “I could mention that it’s absurd to think that a clump of a few hundred undifferentiated cells has interests that trump those of a mature human female…”

    No offense, but this is officially becoming tedious.

    Also,
    Not to pick nits or anything, but I find it curious that you replaced the term ‘female’ or ‘woman’ with ‘citizen’. Does it matter if they are a citizen? Are there men who can become impregnated or be subjected to trans-vaginal ultrasounds? We are talking about laws that specifically impact women, are we not? Maybe it’s just me but I don’t think it’s sexist or discriminatory to say so.

  64. says

    I think it’s a bit unfair to suggest I omitted the coercive element of this.

    Well, perhaps it would be more fair to say that you “glossed over it” rather than omitted it.

    But it’s coercive either way isn’t it?

    Only insofar as it’s coercive to jail people at all.

    This would be a prerequisite to obtaining a constitutionally protected right. Yet you aren’t required to undergo a cavity search as a necessary, legal prerequisite to seeking legal counsel. It may be that you are required to submit to such a search as a practical matter, such as when being booked into jail if and only if the jailers can provide sufficient reason.

    I admit that police can easily come up with probable cause that this is easily and probably often abused. I do not admit that is a justifiable excuse for abandoning those principles altogether.

    In the case of women seeking abortions, the coercion is built into the law. It isn’t a by-product of circumstance, it is non-negotiable.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply