No, the insertion of the probe = rape is the real issue, women being coerced to accept something that all but qualifies as rape by the letter of the law, in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Women, essentially, being treated as mere objects in the pursuit of fewer abortions. It’s despicable.
(Please not to be reading people’s minds who tell you why they hate this idea.)
I personally take issue with characterizing it as rape in any but the narrow legal sense, but it is gross and demeaning and objectifying – the moral equivalent of requiring a penis inspection in order to buy condoms or a rectal probe to see if you’re allowed to eat hamburgers or some such. The woman in such an equation isn’t just subserviant to the fetus, she is invisible. Disgusting.
The patient has the right to decline to view the ultrasound picture. I do find it interesting that if a woman wants to proceed with a pregnancy, there is no requirement that she have an ultrasound. She is free to decline an ultrasound and in fact it is not medically necessary for young healthy women. In fact, there is no law mandating that we inform women that if she has a child she has a higher risk of death than if she has an abortion.
Also, I don’t know why the prostate exam and stress testing before viagra analogy is dismissed so easily. We know that there are risks to viagra including priapism which can lead to permanent loss of function. We also know that impotence is related to atherosclerosis and a person with unknown coronary artery disease who suddenly starts having intercourse has a higher risk of death. In fact, the manufacturer is required to state in advertisements “please see your doctor to assure that you are healthy enough for sexual intercourse before taking this medication”. Why is it not appropriate to say that a physician’s judgement is not enough, a patient must take time off work and schedule exercise stress testing and a prostate exam before being allowed to take Viagra? After all, the patient should be required to view any abnormalities on the stress testing or be fully informed of any potential prostate problems before being prescribed a potentially dangerous medication. In fact, a simple prostate exam may not be sufficient. Sure, the standard of care is that screening with a digital rectal exam is sufficient but a transrectal ultrasound gives a much better picture of the prostate. Sure, it’s not technically necessary and more invasive, but tha patient should really have all the information before taking Viagra. After all, if he doesn’t want a probe shoved up his anus to visualize his prostate he can simply decline and not take the Viagra. If he then gives up any chance for sexual intercourse in the future-well, it’s not coercion because no force is involved.
Actually, while the above is horrible, I don’t think it would meet the standard set for rape in any State.
It would certainly be sexual harassment, violate several labor laws, and possibly be extortion(depending on how extortion is worded in that state), but it wouldn’t be considered rape in the US except for the US military.
Can a woman get an abortion without a vainal probe if a vaginal probe is the only way to see the fetus (which is pretty much anytime in the first few months).
ETA: To clarify, there was an amendment added which would have required that the vaginal probe require consent if it was the only way to see the fetus. The amendment was voted down, so just like the ultrasound is mandatory, if the traditional ultrasound is not clear enough then the vaginal ultrasound is required in order to obtain the abortion.
I’ve read this entire thread and I’m still shaking. This legislation is nothing less than a means to humiliate women, treat them like children, and in the case of women who’ve become pregnant through rape, to rape them again. How this is acceptable to any woman on the planet is beyond my ability to comprehend. Why not just freaking stone them and get it the heck over with?
How can anyone be okay with a law that coerces women to undergo a medically unnecessary, vaginally penetrative procedure? This is the United States of freaking America, for god’s freaking sake. This is no different than a woman being told that in order to keep her job she has to have sex with her boss. Hey, it’s her choice, right? Tell me how that’s not coercion, intimidation, and a threat?
In addition to an insidious attempt at an end run around Roe Vs Wade, this legislation is simply another way to remind women that no matter how far they believe they’ve progressed in the last hundred some-odd years, no matter their accomplishments, no matter their intellect or ability, they remain ultimately little more than chattel, sex slaves, and beasts of burden, the control over their reproductivity and basic human dignity having been consigned to men, their access to legal redress nonexistent.
There is something very, very wrong in the US that such a bloody disgusting and disgraceful piece of legislation has gotten any support whatsoever and is allowed to become law.
So to those men who support this legislation, rape away, you pigs, because you’re just as complicit as the animals who sign it into law.
I apologize if my tone and words have crossed some line for this forum. I make no excuses for how I’ve expressed my anger, nor its possible incoherency.
This seems like a tangent to me, but I for one do not believe that a miscarriage under such circumstances should support a charge of manslaughter. The drunk driver should be charged with something that reflects the harm done to the woman and the woman’s loss of her unborn child, but not for a crime against the foetus.
Well, at least you already admitted this is incoherent.
There are four states with ultrasound laws. Two of them are enjoined (Oklahoma and North Carolina) pending court review and two are on the books as law of the land (Texas and Florida). Arguments against them have ranged from everything from them being demeaning to women to mandatory ultrasounds violating the first amendment rights of the abortion provider (seriously!).
Now I am usually wary of using universal qualifiers, but no one screamed rape in the following four instances. Maybe the first four were rape but the left didn’t notice them because they all flew in under the radar (not likely). Or maybe they were all rape and the left just forgot to label them as rape (not like, either). Or maybe (and far more likely) none of them are actually rape, and the left found out pretty quickly that the above stated arguments they were using to argue against mandatory ultrasounds weren’t exactly what you would called political winners, especially with more states poised to pass their own ultrasounds law.
Ergo, enter the hyperbole. What better way to mobilize your base (and make a fool of yourself in the process) than to scream rape? Anyone who thinks the left is screaming rape because they’re actually worried that this may be akin to rape is fooling themselves, as if the left actually thought mandatory ultrasounds were rape, they wouldn’t have waited four years, five ultrasound laws and a few failed arguments down the road to start screaming it. And here I was under the impression that only the right engaged in fearmongering. Go figure.
But anyway, there is a lesson to be learned here; if you’re not as successful as you want to be, find a(nother) boogeyman to scream about. That’s pretty much all you’ve got, anyway.
This does not address the substance of the argument in this thread regarding the FBI’s definition of rape. Just because no one happened to make the argument yet, to your knowledge, doesn’t constitute a rebuttal in any sense. So what if I just learned about this topic this week? Must I keep track of everything that happens in the universe in real time in order to satisfy you that I can have a position on a topic? No, of course not. So what does this objection amount to? Nothing.
I thought it was hyperbole, but subsequent discussion in this thread has definitely changed my mind. I apologize profusely for not keeping a watchful eye on all developments related to absolutely everything I have an opinion on, so I could have that opinion at just the right time, but better late than never, right?
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read, and that’s saying a lot.
The only lesson is that you are unfamiliar with the process called “finding things out” and “being persuaded,” which reveals more about you than some shadowy group called “the left.”
This is actually not a rebuttal, nor does it respond to the point I was making.
If mandatory ultrasounds are actually rape, then why wait to argue the rape angle years down the line, and only after your only arguments have proven ineffective at preventing states from passing ultrasound laws? The same groups who were railing against ultrasound laws then are the same groups railing against them now (NARAL, PP, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Rights, etc.). You think those groups just magically woke up one day and thought to themselves, “Hmmm, you know, we never noticed this before, but this might be rape.”? No. If one thinks that something is akin to rape, it is generally the first-- or one of the first-- arguments they present. What they found out was that unless they could somehow change the debate, they weren’t going to ultimately win over the ultrasound issue. You see, this is nothing more than a case of engaging in hyperbole to strike up your base (case and point, this thread). And what better way to get people emboldened than to fearmonger?
If you think this constitutes a rebuttal, then you’d be wrong. To semi-quote someone, somewhere, just because you find it ridiculous does not mean it is. Think about this; in the process of typing this post, according to the logic running through this thread, the states of Florida and Texas have legally raped a few hundred women. That’s right. They’ve raped them. Now reading this thread, I see zero outcry nor concerns about that. As I browse the internet, I similarly see equal silence to the apparent plights of hundreds of women throughout Florida and Texas. If, as is purported, mandatory ultrasounds are akin rape, and those railing against the Virginia care oh-so-much about rape and rape victims, then it stands to reason they should also be out and about railing against Florida’s and Texas’ laws which are raping women right now. So why aren’t they? I suspect it’s because the issue isn’t about rape; it’s merely the fact that they don’t want any ultrasound requirements regardless of whether or not that requires the use of a transvaginal ultrasound or not. The entire transvaginal part is a complete red herring.
Now with that being said, I will go so far as to wager that once this whole thing blows over, that the left will not go back and challenge either Florida’s or Texas’ sonogram laws on the idea of them being rape. Want to take it?
This is actually the progression of how the ultrasound fight has played out.
“Mandatory ultrasounds are demeaning to women and unconstitutional!”
“This court finds that the state has a compelling interest in mandating ultrasounds before an abortion.”
“Well, mandatory ultrasounds violate the abortion providers first amendment rights!”
“This court finds that no one’s rights are being violated!”
“Well, what I meant was that mandatory ultrasounds are akin to rape!”
There’s arguing a law on its merits and engaging in hyperbole. Guess which one the whole “rape” issue falls into? This is right up there with claiming the the right wants to bring back Jim Crow laws or that the right wants to hang Blacks from trees or that the right wants to take away your birth control. It makes a nice soundbite, but is utterly devoid of any facts (or logic, for that matter).
But, hey, apparently extreme rhetoric is okay. For the left.
You are not arguing with “the left” and I do not represent them, nor does anyone in this thread. As far as I can tell, most of us are only now finding out about the issue. This is not a sign of weakness, flip-flopping, hypocrisy, or whatever other ridiculous charge you wish to level at your opponents. We know about it now; there’s a thread about it now.
Whether or not it’s rape, sometimes doctors who perform abortions determine that an ultrasound (of any type) is medically necessary. Sometimes it isn’t necessary. Why should the government intervene in this and say it must always be done, no matter what the actual doctor says? Why does the government know better in this instance?
Do those other states require transvaginal ultrasounds? If not, then you’re offering apples to oranges. Or merely obscenely offensive intimidation versus sexual penetration against one’s consent.
It sounds like you agree that medically unnecessary, unwanted transvaginal probing is sexual assault, but are caught up on the word “rape.”
As I said before, please feel free to use the term “sexual assault” instead. “Rape” has so many different connotations that I can understand not wanting to use that term, even though the FBI’s definition of rape does include penetration with an object.
And yes, this is the first I have heard of this. If any state is forcing women to submit to unwanted, medically unnecessary transvaginal probes, that is sexual assault. I don’t know that all the laws are exactly the same though: Virginia had an amendment to the law which would have allowed women to opt out of the transvaginal probing if it was required to get an image, but the amendment failed, leaving no way for women to get out of it. Maybe the laws in other states either have not gone into effect or have exceptions similar to that failed amendment.