Forced ultrasound = state-sanctioned rape
_
Posts: 6,651
Rape: “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.”
Most abortions happen before 9 weeks' gestation, when the fetus is too small to be seen via ultrasound except when using a vaginal probe.
Ultrasonography is not necessarily medically indicated for abortion care.
"Without the consent of the victim" includes so-called consent given under duress (like withholding medical care).
Most abortions happen before 9 weeks' gestation, when the fetus is too small to be seen via ultrasound except when using a vaginal probe.
Ultrasonography is not necessarily medically indicated for abortion care.
"Without the consent of the victim" includes so-called consent given under duress (like withholding medical care).
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
this is state sanctioned rape and i do not know on what legal grounds this can be allowed to occur.
equal protection anyone??
man, i wish all women in this country would stand up and fight this, and i wish the men that are in power would listen to them and do the right thing on this...
did anyone see the committe chaired by darrell issa had all men discussion contraception, and the one woman in attendance was "unqualified" to talk about contraception??? :shock: :shock: :?
hey gop, what does a uterus, and the forced search of one, have to do with fixing the economy or creating jobs????
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Here's some info on ultrasound laws that have already passed: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/s ... ib_RFU.pdf
There are more states that are in the process of trying to pass laws that require ultrasounds. I think Virgina is the main one that's been in the news recently.
I hadn't thought of it as a search before, but you're right.
Apparently the Governor of Virginia has come to understand the problems with forcing objects into women's vaginas against their will. (The rest of the bill is still fucked up though. It is in no way the place of politicians to stick their noses into the standards of medical care. Yet they're still mandating costly forced searches of women's uteruses.)
HEY DEMS: What the hell does the Gov't have to do with Contraception?
Gov't : Get the F@ck out of my life!
Its funny. You like contradicted yourself but put democrat in there....
tell me what part of the brain does that brainwashed mental switch? You wanna them out of your life better get them out of your head first.
I would answer your question, but we already have another thread for that topic. This is a different topic.
From that link (and the Governor):
This makes absolutely no sense... We don't want to pass a law that requires internal ultrasounds, but we will require the doc to determine gestational age. But if that can't be done externally, wouldn't the woman have to have an internal one to satisfy this bullshit gestational age requirement?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
fucking dont say it isnt so...
Not really sure what the hell this thread is about anyways... Using an ultra sound prior to abortion is rape?
Sorry if Im off about that...
The most ironic thing about all of this is that the people who support these laws are pro life Christian republicans who are anti taxes, anti social programs, anti contraception, yet pro death penalty. None of those positions are very christlike are they?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
But I have a question as I'm a dude and most likely will go through life without having an abortion unless my life turns into a bad Schwarzenegger movie ... at any point during the abortion process, is there a point where anything penetrates the woman?
I totally agree that it makes no sense to think the government has a role in the medical decision to have an ultrasound based on the kind of ultrasound that's performed (or the pregnancy decision that's made). But my assumption is that they're only talking about knowing gestational age so as not to violate some law they probably have about later abortions. If the gestational age can only be determined by transvaginal ultrasound, then the pregnancy is necessarily early enough for later-term requirements to not apply. Put another way, abdominal ultrasounds can tell you what trimester the pregnancy is in, and that's all the state "needs" to know.
Some states are trying to require that women who choose abortion have ultrasound probes inserted into their vaginas against their will, without medical reason.
Depends on the kind of abortion.
But, if I see where you're trying to go with this train of thought, let me just stop you right there and point out that women have a right to decide what is and is not inserted into their vaginas and just because they allow one thing to be inserted doesn't mean they should be required to have something else - that they don't want - inserted.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Again, under normal and commonly practiced circumstances, is there a part of the clinical procedure that requires a woman to have something "penetrate" her in order to get an abortion during a medical evaluation?
And if a woman refuses to go let something "penetrate" her under normal circumstances, will she be denied an abortion?
there is a difference between consent, or allowing something such as the insertion of a metal pipe with an untrasound transducer on it, to occur, and forceful compliance, which is being unwillingly compelled by law to allow that insertion to occur.
a law forcing someone to consent to something invasive like this is a violation of basic human rights. it also represents the power of the state over women, and the implied inequality to men that some people actually feel is the truth.
i am sorry, but i believe that laws should be passed to grant and guarantee rights, not take them away.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm still not understanding your logic here; all I see is the same "blame the victim for not being a virgin" logic that people use to justify rape. Surely that's not the parallel you're making. Are you really failing to recognize the difference between wanted and unwanted penetration? Or the fact that unwanted penetration - by definition - constitutes rape? :?
Under "normal and commonly practiced circumstances," as I said before, whether or not there is any penetration depends on the kind of abortion the woman is having. I'm not really understanding your question; I can't tell whether you're referring to the "medical evaluation" for abortion or the abortion itself. If you mean the medical evaluation, no, there is no medically necessary reason for all women to be required to be "penetrated". If you mean the abortion itself, there are two kinds: a pill and a procedure. Women who chose abortion with a pill don't need to be penetrated. When women choose the procedure, instruments must be inserted into the uterus to evacuate its contents. This is the procedure itself, not a requirement to get the procedure. And, again, most women don't have to choose this method. So, no, under most circumstances, women won't be denied abortions for refusing to let something penetrate them.
Again, though, you seem to be walking on pretty thin ice with this line of reasoning.
Yes.
And where are you getting this "commonly used medical practice" from?
And why should it be up to politicians to dictate medical practice to medical professionals?
Brilliant State Senator Attaches Rectal Exam to Anti-Abortion Bill
A crafty state senator has done something so wonderful that we should all be cheering while simultaneously smacking our foreheads, because why didn't we think of this earlier? The hero in question is Virginia senator Janet Howell. The Democrat wasn't happy with a proposed bill that requires women to have an ultrasound before they can have an abortion, so she attached a very special amendment to the bill.
Howell simply attached an amendment that requires men to undergo a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before they can be prescribed medication for erectile dysfunction. Genius. Here's what Howell had to say on the matter:
We need some gender equity here. The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we're going to do that to women, why not do that to men?
Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes! It's like Howell has single-handedly invented a twisted new Golden Rule of Politics: "Do unto others' nether regions as they would do unto yours." And from then on, the good men of Virginia realized it actually feels really terrible when the government tries to "protect" you from yourself, and women were free to do with their bodies whatever they damn well pleased and—screeeech. Dream sequence over.
Howell's amendment was sadly defeated—though narrowly, 21 to 19—and the rectums of Virginia rejoiced. Who, you might be wondering, would have voted against such an amazing idea? Why, Republican senator Jill Vogel, of course, the sponsor of the original ultrasound bill. Here's her rock solid reasoning:
I do believe that erectile dysfunction in this context is different from pregnancy.
In this context? It would be lovely if Sen. Vogel could elaborate on when ED is ever the same as pregnancy, but I digress. What matters is that Howell was happy with the way it turned out, and one hopes she will continue crafting such equitable legislation in the future.
The bill itself passed in a voice vote yesterday, and it's going to be formally voted on today. A similar bill in Texas has caused a logistical shitstorm for providers and patients alike, and it's being challenged in court. Perhaps sanity will prevail, and this ridiculous practice will someday be abandoned. But for now, let's keep our fingers crossed that Senator Howell's innovative approach to dealing with this nonsense will lead to a long string of similar "Shove It Up Your Ass" amendments in other states. After all, it is our Christian duty to make sure the men of this great land don't accidentally die of a heart attack while having medically-assisted sex with their wives or whomever else their sacred vows of open marriage permit.
My problem is not with the legislation, but the language. When the healthcare bill came up, I had a huge problem with pro-GOP people using the term "death panels". I have the same problem with "state-sponsored rape" and the inflammatory language that is being used to combat the issue. I believe it to be offensive to people that have been raped under sexual circumstances.
Present me facts. Don't present me opinions only when it is advantageous.
Remember, we all live in a glass house. Call a spade a spade ... don't call it a heart if it benefits your beliefs or agenda.
Yes, rape is an inflammatory word. And I'm using it because it's warranted. I did present facts - the facts of the procedure and the definition of rape. Those aren't opinions. Sticking an object into a woman's vagina against her will is legally rape. There's no two ways about it.
I appreciate your concern about victims of sexual assault and I in no way wish to trivialize their experiences. But this qualifies as rape just as much as the little girl who gets a beer bottle shoved up her vagina at the demand of a neighborhood gang. Just because the gang wears suits and sits in Congress doesn't make it any better. Rape is rape. There is no such thing as "rape under sexual circumstances". I see what you're trying to say, but rape is not and had never been about sex; it's about control - in the streets and in the state Congress.
Also, women who are survivors of sexual assault will tell you that unwanted transvaginal ultrasounds are traumatic. Most of the sexual assault survivors I've known in this circumstance refuse to allow transvaginal ultrasounds because of how similar it is to their previous rape experience.
So, yes, call a spade a spade. Rape is rape.