The Virginia state legislature passed a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound probe inserted into their you-know-what before they could have an abortion. Governor Robert McDonnell called it the “women’s right to know bill.”
The idea is to force the woman to hear the heartbeat of the fetus, obviously with the hope that she will then change her mind about the abortion. But to characterize this forced invasion of her body as somehow defending her rights is absurd and dishonest. In fact, it is the opposite. It is oppressive. And demeaning. And humiliating. And…I could go on, but you get the point.
The firestorm of protest that resulted caused McDonnell…who has been mentioned as a possible GOP vice presidential nominee…to back down. Slightly. The revised version requires only an external ultrasound, but doctors still have to offer the invasive procedure.
But there is a problem with the external ultrasound. It often does not work for early term fetuses. So, it’s a waste of time and money, serving only to attempt to shame the woman into changing her mind.
Virginia state senator Jane Howell (D) put the issue in perspective. She introduced an amendment that would force men suffering from erectile dysfunction to have a digital rectal examination before they could get a prescription for Viagra-type medication. The amendment failed, of course, but the point was made.
If Virginia were the only state attempting to coerce women, we could dismiss this as an anomaly, but several other states, including Pennsylvania and Alabama are considering similar measures.
This is just another example of the determination of the Religious Right to impose their moral standards on the rest of us. If we let them do it, we have only ourselves to blame.
And, I hardly need to add, the election in November is critical. Even the most moderate GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, is outspokenly anti-choice. But the danger is not only in the Presidential election. People with Santorum-like views are running for Congress and state legislatures all over the country. It’s a massively funded attack on the Constitution and on our liberty. And especially on women’s rights.
No matter how disappointed you are with Obama, his administration, and the Democrats in Congress, the alternative is…unthinkable.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 122
A doctor might want to use a stethoscope to listen to the sounds in the womb, so if he wishes to record it and play it back, that is more logical. If he wants to record an animation made by the device, which I have never seen put inside the body, that is logical.
Are you sure he didn't mean a laparoscope? If he meant a lapasoscope, he is still wrong. Nobody should be forced to undergo any invasive diagnostic treatment or testing without consent.
Is that for real?
I have such a difficulty with that test that I nearly broke my doctor's finger, so I tried a female doctor; same result. Tried a very pretty young female doctor in her early 30's; same result.
Now I'm looking for one who will give me rohypnol then administer the digital probing, but none will. Before I allow the rape, I want a roofie :-D
The Religious Right is always denying that they have any desire or intent to impose their religious beliefs on the nation. This exposes their hypocrisy and dishonesty for everyone to see. This should make most women really, REALLY angry.
i dont care how good looking she is, i am gonna find a new dentist!!!!!!!
ô ¿ ô
saline infusion sonography (SIS), also called sonohysterography or hysterosonography,
Republican War Against Women – The Sleeping Tiger is Waking Up!
"Women and men who support women all over this nation are starting to stand up to the anti-woman movement and organizing themselves to make sure Congress and the religious right hear their voices. There is now a call to march: National March Against The War On Women. This march will take place April 28, 2012 in every state capital."
I wonder what they & the likes of Michelle Malkin and that doofus Ann Coulter think about this. I predict we'll never hear from them on this subject.
It seems to me if one is considering an abortion that this would do little to change one's mind.
Just another hoop to go through at an all ready stressful time.
Now I understand and agree with Sandy.
aside from all else, it is not needed, and costs more.
a plain old external ultrasound, will provide pictures, and sound ....................
this type is insane.
and i know for sure, before i had an incredibly invasive procedure, i would want all the tests that are safe, and non-intrusive, so i had all the facts.
seems that to NOT have the ultrasound, is more of a political agenda then to demand it - why deny people all the information?
it is up to each and every person to have the free chopice - and if they have been repeatedly told one thing (not a person, only a fetus, more of a growth/tumor than a baby), and a simple non invasive, non intrusive test would prove there is another point of view - what hide it from them?
there are always TWO political agendas, one for an action, and one against!
what is the fear of giving them more information?
or is it, that if they are looking at all the facts and data, they MIGHT decide to do the opposite, of what that side of the political agenda wants?
or is margret sangers agenda of fabian-style eugenics too inportant to risk with details?
If her doctor recommends the ultrasound and says it is needed in order to perform the abortion, fine. She is still free to refuse it if she chooses.
But when the legislature mandates a procedure, and the governor even makes it clear that it's about her "right to know," then it is NOT being done for medical reasons.
The political agenda by those defending the woman's right to refuse the procedure is in defense of her rights. The political agenda on the other side is to take away those rights. I don't find those agendas equivalent at all.
I won't get into an argument over Margaret Sanger. She did a lot for women's rights, but she also was influenced by the attitudes of her era.
She was not perfect, but neither was she intent on exterminating minorities, as right wingers claim.
my son in law is an abortiuon survivor. as someone that has that history, and talk about it some more.
my best friend of 30 years, had a girlfriend he wanted to marry, but not for a couple years so they could finish high school.
she went for 'counseling' and an aborion was presented as the only viable solution. she was told it was 'no big deal' and a 'simple procedure', much like 'removing a tumor'. then due to a reflection off the glass on a picture, she saw the 'growth'.
she went into a depression, and killed herself - leaving a note, that had 'she known' it looked 'that much like a person' ....
so tell me again, how it is an OPPRESSION to make sure a woman has all the information, and not simply what some uncaring individual tells them to believe.
i will also not get into an argument over sanger - i read her writings in the 60's. i now what she was,
it is YOU
there are reasons why doctors, by law, must perform certain tests, before they do certain procedures.
should a patient have the right to demand and get, brain surgery, wihtout any x-rays, scans etc?
how about a heart bypass, without any tests.
talk to a person like my son in law, an abortion survivor - his twin brother was not as lucky,
talk to someone like my best friend of 40 years, who in high school had a girl he planned to marry - she was told, it was a simple procedure, not a big deal, like removing a tumor or growth.
then due to an unfortunate event, she could see that 'growth' in the a pane of glass.
the note said had she really known what the fetus would look like, she would never have had it done. she hung herself.
so now you know why i am so opposed to uninformed abortion legally, and opposed to abortion morally (tho no one has to agree with my morals).
and no, i also will not argue about sanger - you are dead wrong aout her, period. back in the early 60's, i read her own writings. the woman was pure evil, and hated minorities with a passion.
You can trot out all the examples you want. Forcing women to carry a fetus to term...or attempting to intimidate her into it is oppression. Plain and simple.
If the right wingers were really interested in women's rights, they should pass a law making the ultrasound procedure FREE for all women...but voluntary. The fact that they force women to have it is wrong. Period.
It doesn't sugar-coat her. But it also shows what she accomplished.
Did you read her writings, or some quotes mined from her writings?
ultrasound for free?????
hmmm - have to buy the machine, and pay the person doing it - you have a magic money tree they can get the funds from?
nothing is free.
an as i said, i know for a fact, that many times young girls especially are intimidated into GETTING an abortion, VOID of all the information.
making it a condition of the abortion, does not "force" anyone to get the procedure done - it is exactly their choice. who is FORCING them to ask for an abortion?
and even when the ultrasound is done, that is not forcing them to carry the BABY to term - they still can proceed if they choose.
if an abortion is such a great thing, then how could full disclosure change their mind?
here it is;
i do not believe an invasive ultrasound should be mandatory.
i do not believe abortions should be totally outlawed.
i have personal experience in the situation, and those FACTS are not going to change, nor is someone elses opinion going to change the only reasonable conclusion, that can be drawn from those facts.
you are entitled to your opinion. and there is no law against being dead wrong.
no reason to further this discussion with you.
I suggested the free ultrasound to refute your claim that I was seeking to keep women uninformed. My agenda is to keep them unopressed. You want to FORCE them to submit to this and I think that is wrong. Whether it is invasive or external is not the point as I have said repeatedly. Either way it is oppressive government action.
For every personal experience you have had with abortions, there are ten thousand cases of women who are perfectly capable of weighing the consequences of getting an abortion or not. They should be allowed to make that decision, free of any coercion.
Period.
Do you claim that the trauma of abortion is always worse than the alternative?
I do not think you can claim such a thing.
I think women should be free to make that choice without coercion.
i have the facts, i did not say what you accuse me of, and i am not discussing it with you. i can not debate with a liar, or someone who has already decided for me, what i think, or those that are not open to reason and facts.
let me try single syllables for you.
i will not talk with you on this.
type all you want.
You, on the other hand, want to FORCE them to have the procedure.
I don't care whether you come back to respond or not.
I want other readers to see who has the agenda here...and it is a self-righteous and punitive agenda. You have decided that women who want an abortion should be punished...forced to undergo a demeaning and humiliating procedure by an oppressive government influenced by religious bigotry. A government that does not respect women enough to allow them to make this decision without coercion.
I'll be happy to let the readers decide who has the agenda here.
no - i do not want to deny them anything - but there are requirements to get the things they ask for from others.
want to borrow money? sign a note, and have your credit history looked at.
want to drive a car? get insurance to protect the OTHER guy (liability),
want to finance the car ? get full coverage to protect the company that paid for it.
want a lobotomy? a ton of tests that HAVE to be done first.
want to kill a baby? get an EXTERNAL ultrasound first - one it may prove there is no physical reason to kill it - two, once you have those details, you may decide to let the baby live.
and yes, it is you that has the agenda bert.
you want pl;anned parenthood to be joined by all the insurance companies, to convince the poor, and the uneducated to cull their herd - by having the so-called 'counselors' tell them it is no big deal, dont need that test but if you REALLY want it - only removing a growth, just like a tumor.
even the klan admitted who they wanted to kill and why.
and see, you still only know part of the story on my own personal experiences.
once ...... just ONCE ............... hold your 17 year old grand-daughteras she cries, because when she was 14, planned parenthood helped her get an (illegal) abortion, and she now realizes she killed her baby. visit her ever week in the psych ward because she attempted suicide 4 times.
or hold your best friend as he is losing his mind (and had a nervous breakdown), hysterical, because he did not even try talk his high school sweetheart out of it.
or talk to your son in law, whose twin brother was murdered in an abortion, and he lived.
after you have done even one of those - come back and brag about how compasionate you are.
yes, you have an agenda alright. and iot stinks to the center of its rotten core.
want to respond more without experiencing one single incident that you are in favor of? dial 1 800 pound sand.
in the afterlife, you will get what you deserve.
good day.
Abortion is not about killing "babies," As I said to another in this thread, you anti abortionists use these loaded words to push YOUR agenda, but when a fertilized cell becomes a person is a matter of opinion. You have yours, but other disagree with you. You have no right to impose your opinion on anyone. Nor do I.
But, and this is the important point: I am NOT trying to impose my opinion on anybody. I think women should be left alone to make this decision on their own. I don't think anybody else's opinion matters.
You, on the other hand, want to tell them what they have to do.
It is YOU with the agenda, Del.
Your self-righteous prattling about your personal experiences has absolutely nothing to do with anyone but yourself. You have no right to tell anyone else how to live their life. Every person is different and they don't all agree with you. Get over it.
As for the afterlife, your threats don't mean squat to me. You have your beliefs about that. I am comfortable with mine.
thought that was at least ONE of those 'pro-choice' options?
but again - you dont read well
i said .. good day
will not say it again.
"as i said before, i am not anti abortion in terms of law - just my own personal beliefs, and how i. myself would act."
The contradiction here is glaring, Del. I read very well, and you are "talking out of both sides of your mouth."
It is hypocritical to say that women have to jump through your Youhoops before they can get an abortion, but that you are "not anti abortion in terms of law."
Why should they have to do that? Is there a medical reason? NO!
It is your AGENDA, Del.
I will say that again, as many times as I like to drive the point home.
A point that you don't seem to get...or don't want to get.
Clinic workers in states that have mandatory ultrasound laws will tell you that women DON"T change their minds. Women are not stupid; they don't decide to have abortions on a whim.
of course - she hasnt complained even once since she died so it doesnt matter right?
or how about my son in law - an aboprtion survivor - his twin brother wasnt so lucky - want to ask him how he feels?
i never ever once said women were stupid, but some do not know, what they do not now, same as men.
and as long as the ultra-sound is external - if no one ever changes their mind - then what does it matter?
and do thoise clinic workers do follow up interviews with the women that have the untrasound, followed by the abortion?
do they ask them in 6 months - a year - 2 years - 10 years?
do they even ask the next day, or day after?
i guarantee you - that i am not stupid either - so keep your irrelevant supposed proofs to yourself.
no you have not the first clue what my position is, as demonstrated by your complete lack of comprehension of what i said, and your immediate condemnation of my stance, and name calling.
So far, you have just spouted your emotional outbursts.
So get down to facts and logic.
Can you do that?
Same with voter ID supression. It's a state-by-state concentrated, ground roots, bottom-up GOP Super-Pac effort. (Read Koch Bro's.)
Despicable!
I do. Small rural communities vote Republican. Urban populations tend to vote Democratic. DUH!!!
So is Karl Rove.
It's hardball politics, and they've got the money to make it work.
"The intravaginal ultrasound is the most humiliatingly uncomfortable procedure I've had done..."
Why do you think that this procedure should be forced on a woman?
Don't you think women are capable of making the decision to have an abortion without Big Brother Government intervention?
The good part about this whole "war on women" is that Christian hypocrisy has never been more blatant. They've not only turned people away from the Republican Party, but also away from the Christian religion. And that's a good thing. A very good thing.
I do not understand the modern 'minding your business" relgious mind set.
Self-righteousness.
Sandy, I ABSOLUTELY think the government should have a say in abortion. You are not allowed to kill your child after they are born, so why should you be allowed to before? Killing is killing period. As for not being able to say which is worse, I highly doubt an abortion is more enjoyable that an ultrasound. Even an exam in labor was FAR more painful than an ultrasound.
You have your opinion...other disagree.
You are entitled to YOUR opinion...so are others.
Why don't you let other people live their lives as they wish, and you live yours as you wish. If you oppose abortion, fine. Don't have one.
Just keep your nose out of other peoples' business.
No contraceptive method is 100% effective, and many women...married or not...are coerced (verbally or physically) into having sex. I am not talking about rape. I am talking about "conjugal rights," etc.
But even if a woman is just careless and gets pregnant, I see no justification for "punishing her with parenthood." Apparently, you do.
I respect people who think that it is a person at conception. I also respect people who say that it is not a person until it emerges from the womb.
And I respect everyone who thinks that the "emergence" of a human individual occurs somewhere in between.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion on this, and no matter how many doctors or biologists or pastors or Santorums there are who pass down their "expert" opinions, they are still just that...opinions.
In the end, it comes down to politics, and some kind of compromise, but neither side is willing to compromise!
So my solution is...whatever your beliefs are, keep them to yourself! Live your life as YOU want to live it to your own personal moral standards and get the f**K out of everybody else's life!
Ah...if it were only that simple. But human nature doesn't allow such a simple solution. One of the great failings of humans is that they INSIST on trying to impose their beliefs on everyone around them.
Until we solve THAT problem, we will continue to have meaningless, endless arguments like this one.
Thanks for responding civilly, as well as factually to the comments. In this post, you also represent me.
I see - uhm - I see a - sorry - I cannot see much of anything.
I have to count on the skills of the technicin or doctor to interpret.
If they have an agenda other than the basic facts I'm fooled.
All part of gullibility and brain injury - - -
If expert advice is tainted by beliefs and I do not share those beliefs -
But this is what I wanted to share on this topic:
(Credit: iStockphoto/Koca777)
Alabama, a state not traditionally known for pro-choice mobilization, is in an uproar this week over proposed legislation that, according to news reports, is similar to the controversial Virginia ultrasound-before-abortion bill.
One Birmingham Democrat in the statehouse called the bill “a radical attempt to humiliate women,†and another said, â€To me, it is another form of rape, without a woman’s consent.â€
Alabama’s governor, recently buttonholed by the Huffington Post, has refused to take a position.
The bill’s author has promised to make the “transvaginal†part optional, and other states with similar legislation pending are on the defensive about the method of ultrasound, claiming ignorance.
Long article and well written
The Ultrasound Fallacy
By Irin Carmon
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/the_ultrasound_fallacy/
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/the_ultrasound_fallacy/
Anita
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/the_ultrasound_fallacy/
You knew you could not change the person's opinion but you called him on the bullying.
By the way, they do nopt see themseleves as being a bully.
They see them selves as being RIGHT.
Once again thank you for staying the course.
Please explain your code words Natural Law.
When I referenced Mother Nature I was talking about the overall package and how it all teams up to rid the earth of perversions. As a part of the regeneration process. That kind of stuff.
With regards to the womb of a woman...everything is designed to protect female sexuality. Including the psychological make-up of women. Regenerating the species is probably the strongest natural instinct and everything to do with it...well, sex is pretty desireable.
But sex does NOT necessarily have anything at all to do with procreation!
Sex can be simply an expression of love and affection.
Procreation is a conscious effort to make babies.
That is completely different and not even relevant to the sex I am referring to.
That is why I asked you about Natural Law.
I am still not sure what you mean by that term.
There are certain safeguards in nature. In fact all nature consists of safeguards. But why? I believe those are placed there to protect the "regeneration" of nature. And those in any species that violate those perimeter protections...gets eliminated. Natural Law has been studied in the microscope/telescope. All our Natural Laws! Gravity! The seasons! Animal behavior! Human behavior! Plant behavior! Matter functioning! Weather patterns and wind streams. Ocean currents. You name it! Natural Law is the Ten Commandments of nature (so to speak).
I personally believe our human species is continually replenishing through its laws of natural selection.
That's why I deplore the agenda of many religions opposing any effort to limit procreation. The sex act is one of the great pleasures in life, and it is as natural and necessary as eating and bowel movements. Any effort to limit it (e.g., preaching abstinence) will ultimately fail, so we had better figure out how to let people enjoy themselves without flooding the planet with their offspring.
I don't think there is any doubt that natural selection is progressing in all species, including humans. But we humans can consciously control the process, and we have caused, and are causing the extinction of many species. We may yet manage to do it to ourselves, but it won't be because we practice contraception and abortion.
It may well be because we do not!
(1) In the animal world...there is the "double fawn" Natural Law that has been observed. The spring before a real bad winter (it has been observed) deer have double fawns. We may be getting ready (as a planet) for a major disaster of some sort (this supposed over-population). Or Africa might be fighting back desperately against the Aids epidemic.
There are several possibilities I can think of. But until then the actual fact is that the educated peoples of the world are reproducing less and the rest are replacing them. Which could mean that our species it actually vomiting out some sort of flaw that comes with this modern Western Civilization.
Observing the microbe world and its approach to human behavior is certainly worth a concentrated look in a world of "thinking" humans. And I am not talking Religion here. I am talking about such things as "microbes". Bacteria! Superbugs! That kind of stuff. Behavior has its bacterial police. This isn't the sixties when everyone was deciding moral foundation without knowing the consequences of sexual behavior. This is the day where superbugs are present in every setting...and medical ethics is tossing the elderly to them in order to prevent a strain they cannot control at all. At the present rate of advancement of STDs...in a very few years society may very well find out why religions have sexual RULES. Even the most stubborn "Secularists".
(2)
I think the threat of extinction from nuclear war or ecosystem collapse is much greater than STDs.
The spread of all diseases is accelerated by advances in human mobility, particularly airlines. A bug can literally travel around the world in an infected person in a day, potentially infecting everyone in their proximity.
STDs are only a part of that threat.
It's hard for me to see how those things are beneficial.
Bert, I reckon I prefer to put a possitive spin on this. Even should the earth shift on its axis. lol. I believe that even the brutal part of the nature of man is the "antithesis" necessary for the Harmony of everything (synthesis).
That is not a criticism of you at all. Who the Hell knows what really drives the natural processes that control our planet?
My position is that God does not exist, and that depending on Him to bail us out is misguided.
I think that we must do it ourselves. If we screw up, we go extinct....and we deserve our fate. But I am not negative about this. I think there is a good chance that we humans will see the folly of our ways.
It's not at all clear at this point that we can correct our destructive...and self-destructive... ways. Maybe it will take a catastrophe to beat some sense into our primitive brains.
I think there is a good chance that will happen.
I hope I am right.
I also believe that we can individually and unitedly change things. But the sticking point here is "foundational motivation". Whether we change things as a "Taker" or as a "Healer". Whether we see things through the perspective of selfisnness or intercession. As a Christian Pastor I feel my calling is "Intercession" for humanity. But under it all is that driving current called "species replenishment".
I also believe in the overall scheem of things there aint no junk. If Atheism exists it has a purpose if Religion exists it has its vital function.
Early man often used herbal solutions to prevent pregnancy. People learned about these herbs through trial and error, or simply by observing what animals consumed and how the animals' diets affected birth rates. The Romans relied on a plant called silphium to prevent or abort pregnancies. This technique must have worked quite well, because historical records show a steady family size of two children per couple through the first five centuries of the Christian era [source: Joyce]. In fact, it may have worked too well; by A.D. 500, demand was so high that silphium had become extinct. Ancient women also ingested Queen Anne's lace and pennyroyal, plants that have been shown to reduce fertility in modern laboratory experiments [source: University of Illinois at Chicago].
Read more at: Did ancient cultures practice contraception - Curiosity
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/ancient-cultures-practice-contraception
Legislation Ultrasound Probe right to know
It is NOTNOTNOT "right to know."
It is "right to oppress, humiliate and attack women."
50+ million fetuses (babies) aborted since abortion became the law of the land...How many Einsteins....Mother Tereseas......Martin Luther King Jrs have we killed?
It seems a tragedy that any could perceive....but the pro abortionists see this loss of life as something to celebrate.