Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Leftís outrageous outrage at a proposal to require ultrasounds before abortion (It's "Rape"?)
Hot Air ^ | FEBRUARY 19, 2012 | TINA KORBE

Posted on 02/20/2012 9:39:24 AM PST by Qbert

The Slate piece that prompted this controversy is a few days old, but the conservative backlash to it is just picking up steam. Thursday, Supreme Court reporter Dahlia Lithwick (whose name I’ve always envied!) penned a preposterous attack on a proposed law in Virginia that would require women to have an ultrasound before they would be allowed to have an abortion. Ms. Lithwick is convinced – convinced – that an ultrasound amounts to rape. She writes:

Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.

Let’s suppose for a second that a transvaginal ultrasound to which women have not consented is rape. Unfortunately for Ms. Lithwick, she’s still flat-out wrong about the law. Why? She vastly overstates the probability that “most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure.” Dana Loesch links to a piece at Red State that sets the record straight:

So does Virginia’s law require some foreign object to be “inserted into the vagina, and then moved around”? The answer is obviously no. The law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound must be used, rather it clearly states that the sonogram “shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community.” This, obviously, is going to be a function of whatever device Dr. Mengele has at his disposal in the abortion facility.

Abdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds are both effective at early stages of pregnancy. This fact is acknowledged in this “continuing medical education” module produced by the National Abortion Foundation (tag line: “A Provider’s Guide to Medical Abortion”):

“Transabdominal ultrasound cannot reliably diagnose pregnancies that are < 6 weeks’ gestation. Transvaginal ultrasound, by contrast, can detect pregnancies earlier, at approximately 4 ½ to 5 weeks’ gestation. Prompt diagnosis made possible by TVU can, therefore, result in earlier treatment.”

So, yes, transvaginal is more reliable for detecting pregnancies for a period of about seven days. Please note the Orwellian use of the word “treatment” for “killing of the baby.” How does this require a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound? Short answer: it doesn’t.

OK, so Lithwick’s wrong about the law. Is she right about what constitutes rape? Would we say that when a women consents to it, an ultrasound is in any way sexual? I’m inclined to agree with Commentary’s Alana Goodman:

Comparing the ultrasound proposal to forcible rape is – to be kind – totally absurd. But [Slate's] not the only outlet engaging in this. Feministe is calling it the “Virginia Rape Law,” and Washington Monthly described it as the “Ritual Humiliation Bill.”

Then there’s Joy Behar, who likened it to Taliban law on “The View”: “It’s like, what are we? What is this, the Taliban now? What are we, in Afghanistan? Where are we exactly in this country?”

The comparisons aren’t just needlessly inflammatory, they also dilute the seriousness of rape.

That last sentence is the linchpin: To equate a medical procedure that carries no real risk of negative consequences — like emotional trauma or STDs — with rape, which does carry such consequences, does an enormous injustice to true rape victims. Incidentally, the Virginia law aims to ensure women have as much information as possible before they decide to undergo another medical procedure that does carry an enormous risk of negative consequences — including emotional trauma.

As Goodman writes, sound reasons to oppose the Virginia law — or, at least, to think seriously about it — certainly exist, but the argument that an ultrasound is somehow rape is just not one of them.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: abortion; corruption; democratcorruption; democrats; liberalfascism; liberals; moralabsolutes; progressives; prolife; ultrasound; unborn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: elvis-lives; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

elvis-lives, since you think the government should not make abortion illegal (as it was throughout the history of our Republic until recently), then are you also opposed to the government prohibiting euthanasia? And if not, why not?

41 posted on 02/20/2012 3:31:49 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives; Jim Robinson; metmom

Our Constitution does not allow you to murder non-citizens.

Thanks for the ping Mom. Did you ping the Viking Kitties?


42 posted on 02/20/2012 3:33:46 PM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ √ě)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

no time or stomach for liberals. sorry.


43 posted on 02/20/2012 3:33:55 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives; metmom

Well gee whiz. Why don’t we just repeal all our laws. Make murder legal and theft. Don’t want the government pushing someone’s morality on me. I can make my own decisions.

Your logic is severely flawed and you are too blind to see it. Don’t worry, I don’t think you will last too long around here with the pro choice position you take so you won’t have to argue with us ‘liberals’ much longer. Lol!


44 posted on 02/20/2012 3:35:08 PM PST by christianhomeschoolmommaof3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

Then why have any laws at all? Why laws against murder, rape, torture, kidhapping? If laws against killing the unborn humans are “big government”, than it sounds as though you are an anarchist who wants no laws at all.


45 posted on 02/20/2012 3:36:33 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

Please answer my question above.


46 posted on 02/20/2012 3:37:02 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

I was wondering if you were a retread, now I am sure of it.


47 posted on 02/20/2012 3:41:06 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

You mean you have no answers to refute us so why even try. If you think making abortion illegal is for liberals, you will find yourself very lonely on this site.

BTW, I would like to see you call Jim Robinson a liberal.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts

Statement by the founder of Free Republic
Free Republic ^ | Jim Robinson
‘As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.’


48 posted on 02/20/2012 3:42:30 PM PST by christianhomeschoolmommaof3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

So now when people are trying to get you to answer some questions, you “have no time or stomach for liberals”.

If FR is such a liberal place, then why not go to a “conservative pro-abortion” site?


49 posted on 02/20/2012 3:42:44 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

‘Our Constitution does not allow you to murder non-citizens.’

Good point. Lol!


50 posted on 02/20/2012 3:44:18 PM PST by christianhomeschoolmommaof3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

“Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks...”

Couple of questions:

How far has human life developed in that 12 weeks?

What kind of bodily intrusion is required to destroy what has developed?


51 posted on 02/20/2012 3:45:13 PM PST by APatientMan (Pick a side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; christianhomeschoolmommaof3

You can’t even see that you are liberals with a different agenda.

Because you have failed in influencing society, you are demanding that Government step in and force people to behave as you demand.

Like I said. The primary objective should be to change hearts. You do that and abortion ends. If you don’t- there will always be abortion. That is the goal.

If you want to go the “change the law” route (the less effective route), then you have to change the Constitution to recognize a fetus as a human with complete rights. If you do that, all the laws are already in effect to protect the fetus same as any other person.

But demanding that gov’t force unwanted procedures (where this thread and discussion began), is just plain Marxist Socialist behavior- same thing a liberal would do.

Thing is- I’m sure you know it, but you rationalize away that liberalism on behalf of a noble goal is a good thing. I disagree.


52 posted on 02/20/2012 3:50:53 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

“You demand that this sort of care be forced on a woman without her consent and you want to call it conservative-”

What is conservative - and honorable and right - is to defend the life of those that cannot defend themselves.

You may be in the wrong place.

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the Declaration of Independence...” Which led to our Constitution.

Again - You may be in the wrong place.


53 posted on 02/20/2012 3:51:47 PM PST by APatientMan (Pick a side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

IBTZ.


54 posted on 02/20/2012 3:53:00 PM PST by APatientMan (Pick a side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: APatientMan

The procedure is for up to 12 weeks. They already do a sonogram anyway to determine the length of the pregnancy. The procedure is VERY invasive.

From an abortion clinic website
http://www.floridaabortion.com/services_abortion/1st.shtml

LENGTH OF PREGNANCY
A sonogram is considered the most reliable method of assessing how far you are into your pregnancy. A sonogram is a test that uses sound waves to see your pelvic structures. It is not an X-ray and there is no radiation. A sonogram is done while you lie down comfortably. A gel solution is applied to your abdomen and an ultrasound wand is placed on your abdomen. There is little or no discomfort while the sonogram is being performed.

PROCEDURE

Before the anesthesia of choice is administered, the physician will perform an internal exam to determine the position of your uterus. This is done by inserting two fingers into your vagina and pressing down on your lower abdomen. Next, a speculum is placed inside the vagina to keep the vaginal walls apart. The physician will hold the cervix, the opening to the uterus, with an instrument called a tenaculum. The physician will then insert a series of narrow metal instruments, called dilators, into the cervix to open it slightly. The physician will then use a slender suction cannula to remove the pregnancy from the uterus.


55 posted on 02/20/2012 3:53:37 PM PST by christianhomeschoolmommaof3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; Lesforlife; EternalVigilance; ...
The Constitution does not recognize a fetus as a citizen.

Citizenship has NOTHING to do with the inherent right to life.

If a fetus is not a person, what is it? Do you think there's some chance it might develop into a giraffe or a zebra?

56 posted on 02/20/2012 3:56:37 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; christianhomeschoolmommaof3

You are confusing anti-abortion laws with pro-life. Like I said, anti-abortion laws will not stop abortions. Changing hearts will, but you seem not willing to put the time or effort into it. You’d rather get a law passed, pat yourself on the back and pretend you did something.

You don’t seerm to realize that you are acting like liberals with different priorities.


57 posted on 02/20/2012 3:57:01 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

You are wrong in every point.

1. More people are becoming pro-life, especially among young people.

2. It is the government and government funded agencies who are promoting abortion. This Big Government promoting using tax money doesn’t seem to bother you at all.

3. Being pro-life is a basic conservative position.

4. Hating laws against abortion is a basic Leftist and Libertarian position.

So, you are a Leftist or a Libertarian (but I repeat myself).

You did not answer my quesion, so here it is again:

Then why have any laws at all? Why laws against murder, rape, torture, kidhapping? If laws against killing the unborn humans are “big government”, than it sounds as though you are an anarchist who wants no laws at all.


58 posted on 02/20/2012 3:59:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives; little jeremiah; christianhomeschoolmommaof3; trisham; metmom; BykrBayb; TheOldLady
Like I said, anti-abortion laws will not stop abortions.

Laws against murder, rape and arson don't stop those crimes either, should we do away with them?

You don’t seerm to realize that you are acting like liberals with different priorities.

YOU are supporting abortion on a pro-life, conservative forum, that makes YOU a liberal.

59 posted on 02/20/2012 4:00:38 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

Oh, and you are really wrong with this insane claim:

5. You claim that making abortion illegal will not stop abortions. It may not stop them 100%, but it will reduce the number to a tiny amount.

You really, really are on the wrong site.


60 posted on 02/20/2012 4:00:42 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson