Rape her once, rape her twice

Indiana Republican legislators decide that raping a pregnant woman with a transvaginal probe once isn’t a good enough way to punish her for seeking an abortion. Nope; gotta rape her twice.

What makes Indiana really stand out, though, is that this bill, SB 371, would require two ultrasounds—before and after the abortion. The bill would require physicians to “schedule a follow-up appointment” two weeks after RU-486 is administered. But that’s not all. Under penalty of criminal and/or civil charges and fines, physicians must “make a reasonable effort to ensure that the pregnant woman returns for the follow-up appointment.”

Because…what? They’re hoping the second probe will persuade the fetus to have a conversation with them in which the fetus begs them in rhyming couplets not to allow its promising young life to be cut off?

Well, no. Just to punish the whorey slut. They can’t think of any other way to punish her that they can get away with, so they have to settle for shoving a stick up her twice.


  1. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Jesus Christ. As if it weren’t bad enough, the extraordinary intrusion into doctor-patient relationships is stunning. Yes, I know that intrusion has been going on. But putting an actual legal onus on the doctor to “ensure” the patient shows up? That’s unprecedented and outrageous. What the hell do they want doctors to do, baby sit?

  2. smhll says

    I feel silly even trying to apply logic to this mess, but – what EVIDENCE is there that a follow-up visit and second trans-vag ultrasound does anything that contributes to a beneficial health outcome for the person who was pregnant?

  3. Pteryxx says

    They don’t care about doctors babysitting, or follow-up… this is just a measure to intimidate *doctors* out of providing RU-486 by opening them up to criminal penalties. Force women to go to doctors, then discover their doctors can’t or won’t provide the medication. More wasted time and money, more delay, more desperation.

  4. says

    I think the point is to subject the woman to the probe once, ensuring a needless, unpleasant and humiliating experience, and then say “If you have the abortion, we’re going to do that again. Are you sure you wouldn’t rather change your mind?”

    It’s sickening, it’s infuriating, but more than anything, it’s surreal to think that grown people with at least enough intelligence and education to get themselves elected* could actually think that this was a good idea.

    * yes, a low standard, but at least it’s A standard

  5. Eric MacDonald says

    I have no understanding of American constitutional law as such, but you would think that something so brazenly religious in origin, and so intrusive of the privacy of women alone, and without any relevance in the states’ right to regulate abortion, would violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, just as Rowe vs. Wade did. In what way is the state permitted to pass laws which apply to women alone, whose obvious purpose is to humiliate women, and thus to deny them the equal protection of the law? Republicans are a strange species of human beings. Perhaps the laws should not apply to them at all.

  6. says


    My apologies but motives would imply more than simple emotional lashing out at women whose reproduction they can not control. All we can do is talk of the reptilian legislative emoting there is one moral level to this issue and not much depth that I can see…

  7. chrislawson says

    Raped twice? Let’s not forget that for victims of rape seeking an abortion, this will make it three times.

  8. Martha says

    @ Ulysses #5 Too right!

    Even though my fellow IN voters and I managed to avoid electing Richard Mourdock after his comments on rape, the majority of us still voted for Mike Pence as governor. I have very little hope for reasonable law-making during his term, except that a lot of really unsavory bills have failed to make it out of committee here– like anti-gay marriage laws, which business interests quietly quash over and over again.

    Does that mean that, sometimes, corruption is good?

  9. bad Jim says

    Maybe they think that taking RU-486 is painless, so an additional intervention is required for old times’ sake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *