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.
I think he is a retread Libertarian.
He’s gone. Elvis does not live. I did hit abuse on his comment 39. He’s trolled on other topics as well.
“Like I said, anti-abortion laws will not stop abortions.”
Really?
Should we do away with laws against murder and theft? Why not? Would it be OK if I walked up and slapped you? Why not?
Should we rely on “changing hearts” to solve those problems, too? Explain this to me.
You are in way over your head. Like a typical liberal you can’t think things through to their logical end.
Lol!
Until Roe vs. Wade (bad case law) a baby in the womb was protected from murder. What we want is to overturn the bad case law and demand the same protection for unborn persons that always existed prior to 1974.
You are the liberal on this issue not us.
We don’t need a personhood amendment recognizing a baby in the womb as a person. Science and even common sense could tell us that. What we need is for judicial activism to stop and for the government to stop infringing the rights of babies in the womb. By this you are saying that the children in the womb do not have a right to life unless the government SAYS they have a right to life. They have a right to life because GOD gave them the right to life. The government with it’s bad law has infringed the right of the children in the womb.
YOU are the one that doesn’t understand God given rights, natural law and the proper role of government.
Thank goodness.
You have no idea what you are talking about. I said upthread that we need to change HEARTS and LAWS. I support financially and volunteer at a pregnancy crisis center. I also advocate changing the law.
This law about ultra sounds is nothing more than informed consent. Many women are not informed about what they are doing when they get an abortion. Abortion providers purposely mislead.
Ultrasounds will help to change the minds of women that have been misled to believe that a pregnancy is nothing more than a mass of cells.
Aww we were having fun with the troll. :)
They prefer Ignorant Choice.
It goes along with the Lump of Cells description of a Human Life.
If Abortionists did the same things that they do to a Human Fetus during an Abortion to a Golden Retriever Fetus, there would be a PETA March on Washington.
"This is conservatism? If this isn’t Big Government, what the heck is????"
Opposing states rights is "Conservatism"?...
Most will still abort.
They want the baby dead, that’s their whole point.
And pro-lifers have willfully provided cover for the sin of baby-killing by saying “Oh, the woman is too stupid to know it’s a baby!”
A lot of it is about women embracing the feminist “owed everything but owing nothing to anyone else” worldview.
A loveless hell for those who embrace it and for those around them.
That's what legislation like this says: Do _______ and then you can kill the baby.
The government enforces no one robbing you.
You OK with that?
You’re not in favor of women making their own decisions to steal your car.
He already got the zot.
He already got the zot.
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.