Did I miss a page? I thought you just mentioned that the courts have actually not weighed in yet…
-andros-
I’ve already been over this. Seven states (I actually only thought it was only two who had ultrasound laws currently being enforced. Guess I learned something new today) already require an ultrasound before an abortion, period (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Lousiana, Mississippi and Texas). And, yes, they are similar to the Virginia law. For example, in this post, you can find the texts of both the Florida ultrasound law and the Virginia ultrasound law. They are equivalent, and neither mandates or specifies any form of an ultrasounds. So, yes, it’s an apples-to-apples, oranges-to-oranges comparison.
[QUOTE=Carmady]
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.
[/quote]
Even if you replaced the word “rape” with sexual assault, it’s still wrong.
Now I’m going to assume the argument is something like this; when a woman consents to an abortion, she consents to being vaginally probed. When she consents to an abortion, she doesn’t consent to an ultrasound. Even if an abortion is contingent on first undergoing an ultrasound, the fact that any woman consents to an abortion does not mean she consents to the ultrasound which precedes it. Therefore, an intravaginal ultrasound is rape/sexual assault/whatever because it involves vaginally probing a woman when she did not explicitly agree to be vaginally probed via an ultrasound even though she did agree to be vaginally probed via an abortion, the latter of which is contingent upon having an ultrasound.
Did I get that right? If so, then that is ridiculous. If A is contingent on B, whereas you cannot get A unless you agree to B, by consenting to A you also consent to B.
And, fwiw, I think it’s weird how you can complain about being vaginally probed before you get vaginally probed.
No, I said that the Oklahoma and North Carolina laws are enjoined pending a review.
Oh, and just to reiterate, those complaining don’t care about “the probe” (that sounds like a 50’s horror movie), as it’s the actual ultrasound-- whether or not it’s invasive or not-- that draws their ire.
Ah, so I can ignore as strawman the “progression” you posted.
I’m not seeing where you’ve offered actual evidence of this statement. If I’ve missed it, please accept my apologies and kindly point me to it.
I, for one, have no problems with the ultrasound requirement. I object to government-mandated personally (and sexually) intrusive medical procedures that are not medically necessary. Why would a conservative find that so very difficult to understand?
-andros-
OMG, you haven’t understood the reasoning.
The reasoning is as follows:
- Suppose someone denied a woman access to something she had a right to unless she allowed him to put an object inside her vagina.
- Suppose the woman does, as a result, allow him or her to put the object inside her vagina.
- In such a case, the woman has, by definition, been raped.
- The Virginia law will bring about situations of exactly this description.
- Therefore, the Virginia law will bring about acts of rape.
What you need to do now is explain what is wrong with the reasoning just given above. The argument is valid. You need to explain which premise is false, and make it plausible that that premise is false. Lines one and two are just suppositions, so you’ve only got two premises to aim at. Is 3 false? Is 4 false? Both? If neither, then you are obligated to change your mind.
Note that if you can’t show this argument to have a false premise, then your previous posts simply amount to arguments that they’ve been raping women who want abortions in other states already for several years now!
I was unaware that Oklahoma and North Carolina were the only states with mandatory ultrasound laws on the books and the only states in which some court chimed in and allowed the law to stand.
I did. Virginia would not the only state with an ultrasound law on the book. Virginia’s current legislation is virtually the same language-wise as other states with mandatory ultrasounds on the book. The biggest difference is that Virginia states that everyone seeking an abortion must obtain an ultrasound prior while other states don’t make it necessary for certain situations. In this thread, for example, at least two or three different people have tried to say that Virginia’s legislation is “different” because it allows the use of an intravaginal ultrasound, yet when shown that it mandates no specific type of ultrasound-- much like all other ultrasound laws-- they turn around and simply say something along the lines of “well, I don’t like government-mandated procedures!”, which has nothing to do with the type of ultrasound being performed, but rather that an ultrasound is being performed. Case and point:
This response.
Regardless, it’s only “mandated” if you choose to have an abortion. Yeah, I know. The dreaded “c” word. Those acting like women are going to be strapped down and be vaginally probed against their will are engaging in the worst kind of rhetoric. Nothing of the sort has happened when this legislation passes and once it does pass, people quickly forget about it.
They aren’t quite the same. The Virginia law says:
“The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable.”
My understanding is that the transvaginal probe may be required to get a sufficient image. And my understanding is backed up by the failed amendment which said that if a transvaginal probe was required to get the image, the woman could opt out. As well as by sources in several articles saying that early in pregnancies the invasive method would often be required.
The Florida law does not say anything specific about what the image must show, so Florida doctors can probably avoid using the transvaginal ultrasound. However, some Florida doctors have probably chosen to interpret it more strictly, and some sexual assaults may well have occurred.
Do you agree that this mandate to have an ultrasound performed prior to an abortion is primarily an attempt to dissuade a woman from following through on the abortion?
Do you believe that there is a compelling state interest at stake that would allow the government to try to influence the decision of a woman on whether or not to exercise a option that the Supreme Court has ruled is protected by the Constitution? What is that state interest?
Do you believe that the state may intervene with the exercise of other constitutional rights in an attempt to dissuade a person from exercising them? For example, if a church wants to open in a new location, may local officials require that the ministers of the church take a class that educates them on injustices perpetrated by their religion through the ages, just to make sure that they really want to open the church?
You’re grasping at straws there. Never mind the fact that you’re assuming some kind of unrestricted right of access, (3) is most definitely wrong. Rape, by definition, involves the lack of consent. In the aforementioned situation, the ability to have an abortion is contingent on undergoing an ultrasound. Every woman who undergoes an abortion knows this, because it’s explained beforehand. If a woman chooses to have an abortion she, by default, also consents to whatever is involved in obtaining that abortion. You are trying to separate the contingency away from having an abortion and then trying to claim rape. But how, exactly, can you separate the contingency (in this case having an ultrasound, or any other such restriction) away from accessing abortion? Ergo why the the whole rape analogy fails. Unless, of course, you’re going to argue something like duress.
You feel that you’ve found some deep hypocrisy in pro-choice positions on these ultrasounds but you haven’t. Yes, the ultrasound requirement, the requirement for a completely unnecessary medical procedure designed only to guilt women from exerting control over their body, raises ire. In fact, any state-mandated requirement to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship to prevent abortions raises my ire. Why not go start a thread about it if you wish to argue that? I am fairly certain you would find all the same people in here taking up the anti-ultrasound position for those other reasons as well.
I was completely and blissfully unaware of requirements that could cause women to be violated against their and their doctor’s will as a prerequisite for the procedure. Since I never have been nore ever will be a pregnant woman, I had no idea that ultrasounds sometimes were intravaginal. Just never occurred to me. Now I see the evidence of what goes through the minds of these legislators’ heads. For the first time since lurking and finally posting on this board, I am compelled to believe that Der Trihs’ characterization of pro-lifers may in fact be more accurate than false. I think these legislators believe women have a defined role, and once they violate that role they are deserving of being sexually assaulted. The fact that the legislators do not mind that a consequence of these laws is sexual assault supports the assertion. That’s the objective opinion of these laws that nobody has been able to mount a successful argument against in this thread. You’re reduced to just whining about hypocrisy and saying “not so”.
Now that I am aware of all the potential consequences I will make sure that I do something when these sorts of moronic laws come up in my own state. Before I viewed it as an inconvenience but now I fear for the people whom I care for potentially being sexually assaulted while undergoing an abortion. Worse still, they may somehow believe they deserve the pain and discomfort because the law clearly makes it the case. Happily I do not live in, nor ever intend to live in, any of the predictably backwards states that have these laws on the books.
There’s no hypocrisy here, it’s called awareness.
It is obviously duress - and coercion. In order to exercise her constitutional right to have an abortion she must consent to undergo an invasive and medically unnecessary procedure.
We certainly want to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, don’t we? Then, how would you feel about a state mandate for an intense battery of mental tests and brain scans before you were allowed to purchase a gun? Probably not too happy, right? You’d see it (correctly) as an attempt to discourage people from exercising their constitutional right of gun ownership. This is the same thing.
From this link http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+amd+SB484ASR
I found this rejected ammendment amusing:
I mean, we should be cautious with these drugs and it’s not like a man HAS to them.
I’m sorry, but do you consider the above to be a serious rebuttal? Because, you know, it’s not unless you’re somehow going to assume that the purpose of an ultrasound in Florida is just to do one and get whatever picture you want. I, however, am pretty sure that’s untrue. The purpose of an ultrasound is to obtain a clear picture of the unborn. We all know this. Transvaginal ultrasounds are used in the first weeks of pregnancy because they generally generate the best images. The idea that any state would mandate ultrasounds but would forgo using whatever would allow for the best image of the unborn at whatever gestational age we’re talking about is slightly absurd, not to mention there’s no reason to believe this wouldn’t be the case.
I ain’t got no problem whatever so with states regulating any activity which invariably brings harm to another.
I’m not so sure you understand what duress nor coercion is. It doesn’t matter what your constitutional rights are; there is no such thing as an unfettered right of access. Even in regards to abortion, SCOTUS has already acknowledged this (since you want to mention constitutional rights). Anyway, I’ve noticed something strange here, and that is the fact that no matter how many times I’ve pointed it out, certain persons act as if having an abortion isn’t medically invasive and medically necessary, when in fact the first-- at least when we’re dealing with surgical abortions-- is untrue and the second is almost always false. I mean, if a transvaginal ultrasound is medically invasive and medically unnecessary, then what is an abortion?
I’ve got no problem with mental health screens before one is allowed to buy a gun. What’s your next contention?
I can’t see how that’s either true or relevant.
This is the most meaningful post you’ve made, thanks for making it.
It’s now incumbent on your opponents to either explain why your reasoning here is wrong and 3 is in fact true, or else revise the argument so it doesn’t rely on the truth of 3.
Ready set go.
[/referee]
To stand pending review. What court cases have established “that the state has a compelling interest in mandating ultrasounds before an abortion?”
Hold on now. You said that the people opposing the Virginia bill are really only opposing the ultrasound, not the fact that requiring ultrasound in the first trimester requires a transvaginal procedure.
You have not actually demonstrated this. In counterpoint, I provide A) my admittedly anecdotal perspective and B) your own discussion about the existence of other laws in other states.
If it were just about the ultrasound requirement, and no one really cares about the actual mechanics of the ultrasound, can you explain the current hue and cry about this bill in particular? Occam would suggest that there was relatively little complaint in previous instances because most people do not consider the ultrasound requirement per se to be exceptionally onerous. Occam would further suggest that there is relatively much more outrage at the Virginia bill because it would patently require a vaginally invasive and unnecessary procedure in many, if not most, cases.
In the interest of full disclosure (and to address the OP), I don’t call it rape. I agree with you that abortion is a choice, and if this bill passes that choice would include the knowledge of the ultrasound requirement. But I also believe that everyone has a right to medical procedures, including abortion, without unnecessary governmental interference. I want the government to require my doctor to be licensed and properly trained. I don’t want it to require a prostate exam prior to my tonsillectomy.
Obviously, it’s problematic to equate elective early-term abortion with other elective medical procedures. I absolutely respect the drive and desire of those opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds. But I disagree with it vehemently, and find the Virginia bill to be egregious and unconscionable social engineering at the expense of women’s personal and medical rights.
-andros-
nvm
Wow. As someone often accused of being a liberal I have a huge problem with requiring mental health scans before purchase of a gun. Things get stranger every day.
I guess we could pass a law requiring insurance providers to provide birth control, then. After all, churches which oppose birth control don’t have to organize so large as to fall under legislation which mandates health care coverage. If they don’t consent to birth control, nothing is really standing in their way of exercising their first amendment rights. Just don’t become an organization so large.
I guess we could pass a law requiring voters to pay a poll tax. After all, they aren’t being forced to pay the poll tax, just don’t vote.
Hell, we could require a transvaginal ultrasound. Don’t want a cold medical device crammed inside you? Don’t vote.
Strictly informational, you see. You’ll be a more-informed voter if you find out about a possible pregnancy before you vote. Enjoy!
You seem to be confused with procedures consented to and procedures forced upon one. When I go for a checkup the doctor sticks a finger up my ass. That is a medically necessary invasive procedure I consent to. However if he says that he feels like sticking a baseball bat up there also, I get to object. If the state legislature mandates it, I really get to object.
That a woman consents to an invasive procedure doesn’t mean she has to consent to all invasive procedures. The medical necessity of the abortion has nothing to do with anything. A woman who agrees to breast enhancement surgery does not agree to anything else.
Invasive ones? Do you accept the need for background checks also? I suspect the NRA probably also agrees that mentally ill people shouldn’t have guns, but I doubt they’d agree to these extensive checks, since they oppose reasonable background checks. I’m guessing that if a law as I posited would really be proposed you’d be screaming as loud as anyone.