Huh.
Hit submit post by accident.
Apologies.
Is it? Could you explain to me the relevance between a rectal exam and getting your teeth cleaned? Because, you know, I could explain to you the relevance between getting an abortion and having an ultrasound. Actually, never mind, because that will be deemed irrelevant as it once was already. This thread should really wipe away the pretense about the political left caring for anything other than abortion, for anyone who would ever compare being raped to having to have an ultrasound before an abortion is an ideologue in the worst way. And not only an ideologue, but a damn insensitive one, to boot.
By the way, (1) Florida, where I happen to live, has a mandatory ultrasound requirement and, you know, thus far there haven’t been any complaints of state mandated rape and (2) I’m sure that the actual abortion would be more invasive than an ultrasound.
Are you a moron? There is a difference between a transvaginal ultrasound, which involves sticking a large wand up inside the woman, and a traditional ultrasound, which is non-invasive. The merits of ultrasound requirements have been debated before. This debate is specifically about this form of ultrasound, which is not only not medically necessary, but is also very invasive and painful for the women who have to undergo it.
It seems like you really aren’t concerned about actual legal definitions, though. If you are, there are several in this thread already that ought to have sufficed. If the whole argument really depended on a distinction between rape and sexual assault (an applicable definition of which was like two lines below the definition of rape you offered, at the link you did not include, notwithstanding that it was a definition from the UCMJ, which doesn’t much apply to a lady and her obstetrician), then it would have already been resolved: in some jurisdictions, it’s not rape to penetrate someone with an object without consent. It’s sexual assault. Where people are saying rape, they’d probably be more technically accurate to say sexual assault. And lots of people have already said that. But you seem to be not all that concerned with that distinction, because you haven’t been paying attention to it yourself. And it doesn’t much matter either way.
People could take the time to answer all of the semantic questions you’ve raised about why aren’t taxes armed robbery and how is medical necessity relevant, and where coercion fits in with all of this, but do you actually care what they say? It seems to me that you just have an idea in your head about what sexual assault means, and that definition is what isn’t matching up, not the one on the books. In that case there’s not really an argument to be had.
Editing to add: I literally care only for abortion. I’ve been left by like nine different women for it. They’re like “you don’t care about me. You only care about abortion.” And I’m like it’s a free country, baby.
This isn’t appropriate for Great Debates. Don’t do it again.
You might want to read both HB1127 (Florida) and HB462 (Virginia). Both are the same in their language regarding ultrasounds, the only difference being that Florida allows exceptions whereas Virginia does. That means that, the same way that a woman in Virginia can be “vaginally probed” so, too, can she be in Florida.
This debate isn’t about “a specific form of ultrasound”; it’s merely about a group who wants to cry rape because they don’t like mandatory ultrasounds, period. The whole rape equivalence is rather disgusting.
Quote the relevant part of the text that allows for vaginal probes. This isn’t just about ultrasounds in general being compared to rape, it’s this specific form of ultrasound being invasive and unnecessary.
Yes, that’s what is disgusting here. Not the law; describing it in a way some people don’t like.
Alright, here’s a closer example. What if we had a Christian Scientist dominated government, and to get people to avoid doctors they made a law that doctors could only treat patients with medication by pushing it up their anus in the form of a humongous rectal suppository.
Sound good?
Here is the whole “vaginal probe” line from the Virginia law:
Seriously. That’s it. Some people have figured that because some ultrasounds, if the pregnancy is earlier enough, requires a transvaginal probe that the above is akin to state mandated rape because it involves the use of a transvaginal probe. If that’s the case then so, too, does Florida’s law involve state mandated rape, since it says:
But thus far, nothing has happened in Florida in regards to “vaginal probing”, though it’s most certainly allowed by the language of the bill, and I doubt anything will happen in the case of Virginia, either.
That is what’s disgusting here. Because individuals cannot debate the law on its merits, they instead want to draw false equivalencies and engage in extreme hyperbole. It doesn’t help that said hyperbole (1) makes light of women who have been raped (some of whom undoubtedly take no issue with the law) and (2) somehow insinuates that everyone who agrees with the law is some kind of rape apologist. But, you know, I would expect no less.
Why did you return to this argument when you already agreed that the ultrasound serves no beneficial purpose? Does paying taxes serve a beneficial purpose? Yes. Does paying parking tickets serve a beneficial purpose? Yes. Does incarcerating me for raping people serve a beneficial purpose? Yes. It’s a social contract. Am I being coerced into complying even if I don’t agree with these laws? Yes. Society has deemed it necessary to control my selfish behavior in these instances and because of it I can enjoy a better society, whether I readily recognize it or not.
Now, do extraneous, possibly uncomfortable or harmful, procedures that require a doctor to insert a device into an unwilling woman’s vagina who is just jumping yet one more hurdle to control her body serving a beneficial purpose? No. Clearly not. It’s coercive like any other law that has ever existed yet there is no reciprocation. It’s just designed to humiliate, to punish a woman for her desire to control her bodily functions.
So if a pregnant woman does not want to comply with law she is forced to undergo pregnancy followed by a baby shoving its body through her vagina, tearing the insides and requiring time to heal. If you do not see the force in that I don’t know what else to tell you other than go ask women who’ve been pregnant if they’d go through all that for something they didn’t want.
If a doctor does not want to comply with law they may lose part of their practice, or risk legal repercussions that could end their career. Yet you don’t see the force in that?
Since we are not discussing a weak threat in this case, unless you literally think pregnancy is just like a nice soothing back rub, I don’t know how this is a relevant question.
Rape is a legal term. Less than 3 decades ago it was literally impossible to rape your wife no matter how much you raped the living shit out of her. Do you get it? Rape is a legal term that can change with cultural values.
A scientific term for this behavior is “forced copulation”. Its used widely to discuss animal behavior to avoid the legalistic arguments and get down to measuring the phenomenon. In that spirit is how this law is being criticized. The analogy is to violating a woman’s body in a sexual manner to humiliate her, to punish her for her desire to get an abortion.
Most people don’t go running around discussing “forced copulation” or “sexual coercion” - they just jump to the legalese of rape and sexual assault. It’s the responsibility of the listener to make the slight jump in logic to understand nobody is discussing the specifics of the law, despite arguments that show how this behavior maps almost perfectly onto existing law.
So no, I guess I can’t send these legislators to prison for rape or even sexual assault, but I can make the entirely reasonable analysis that they are legislating sexual assault or rape because of their thoughts about women who desire to have an abortion and the consequences of the law.
Congratulations, that’s very clever.
Lynn Bodoni is quite clearly distinguishing between a respectable and defensible meaning of the word “requirement,” as in MEDICAL requirement, and a non-respectable and indefensible (in this context) meaning of “requirement,” as in LEGAL requirement. And here you are, conflating the two, just as though there is no distinction to be made between them; and as though she is not insisting on the distinction at all.
So, again, my congratulations: very cleve – waitaminute, I don’t mean “clever,” I mean the other thing – oh, that’s right: disingenuous.
I think plenty of folks have tried to debate the merits. I will too: 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?
Obviously, the answer is that the law is meant to make it harder to get abortions, though supporters don’t seem to want to admit it. Another one seemed to be a little more forthright, buying into the fallacy that most abortions are done for “lifestyle convenience”.
I think the bill is abominable. How does this (or restrictions like parental notification) help a scared 16 year old, perhaps already traumatized and/or taken advantage of by those close to her?
The thread starter who used the word “rape” in the first place (thus prompting its further use in answer to his question) is pro-life. And the pro-life posters in this thread are insisting on the word “rape”. I think that term has too many connotations to be useful here, but “sexual assault” is an apt description. Please feel free to use that instead.
Here is a proposed amendment to the bill that did not pass.
The amendment says that a doctor will not perform an ultrasound involving vaginal penetration without the written consent of the woman, and that if a fetal ultrasound image can only be obtained with an ultrasound involving vaginal penetration, then it will not be required.
Again, that amendment failed. So the law says exactly what we thought it said. There is only one area of vagueness, which is how often a fetal ultrasound image can only be obtained with an ultrasound involving vaginal penetration. Unless the answer is “never”, the bill is sponsoring sexual assault. Do you believe the answer is “never”?
I am led to believe from various articles that, especially early in pregnancy, the answer is “fairly often”. Does that seem accurate to you?
The term is apt, it is not an exaggeration. It is a literally applicable term for this situation.
If you will not allow someone access to something to which they have a right, unless they agree to allow you to penetrate their vagina with an object, then if they do so “agree,” and you do penetrate them, you have raped them under the law.
If it were anyone but the government doing this, the act would unquestionably be rape. Legalizing it does not make it any less so.
You know, I’ve been staying out of this “rape” debate because I really wasn’t sure what I thought about it. I was leaning towards, “understandable but unfortunate hyperbole, which is going to get the pro-choice size dismissed as shrieking harpies,” but after this, I’m in the, “yes, it’s literal rape,” camp.
Imagine if you read the following news report: “Dr. John Smith of Springfield was taken into custody today after multiple patients accused him of forcing them to submit to unnecessary vaginal exams before receiving an abortion. Doctors from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists tell us that the procedure in question, vaginal ultrasound, is not routinely done before most abortions. Dr. Smith currently faces 24 counts of sexual assault, and more women are coming forward daily.”
It would be totally natural to refer to such a case as “that doctor who raped his patients.” Even if he claimed he was doing it for medical reasons, it’s far enough outside the standards of practice that I think it would still be sexual assault. Just like that sicko who was rearranging his patients’ genitals for what he considered legitimate medical reasons. (Sorry, I’m not googling to find out his name, even with safe search on.)
Well shit I take it all back then. I think its fucking disingenuous. Everyone has been acting like a vaginal probe was a required before every abortion in Virginia. If it doesn’t require more than an abdominal ultrasound then I think its an unconstitutional intrusion on the woman’s privacy but its not rape IN ANY WAY.
According to some comments, similar laws are already in effect in several states including Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. Are those laws being enforced and are the probes vaginal or not?
The amendment which would have required a vaginal ultrasound ONLY IF a good view couldn’t be had by abdominal failed. In other words, yes, everyone has been acting like a vaginal probe will be required before every abortion in Virginia because that’s the bill that’s still in the running.
From what I can gather, the law requires the ultrasound to produce a conclusive age of the fetus. Given that extremely early abortions will not produce a picture using the traditional method of ultrasound, the transvaginal option would produce the picture. One legislator attempted to add an amendment to the bill, stating "fetal ultrasound image can only be obtained with an ultrasound requiring vaginal penetration and the pregnant woman declines to provide written consent to an ultrasound requiring vaginal penetration, then … fetal ultrasound imaging for the purpose of determining fetal age shall not be required.”, which was voted down. Supporters of the initial bill remarked "that women had already made the decision to be “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.”
So, it sounds like the transvaginal ultrasound isn’t mandated, but attempts to require the transvaginal ultrasound to be refusable if the regular ultrasound didn’t provide sufficient visibility to determine fetal age were voted down.
Ultrasounds aren’t medically indicated prior to abortion, which is one issue. Transvaginal ultrasounds which are only indicated to satisfy the law’s requirement are doubly not medically necessary, and are also not able to be opted-out for women undergoing them.
My reading is, if you are getting an abortion and the normal ultrasound is not conclusive enough to determine age, you can not refuse the transvaginal ultrasound and still obtain an abortion.
http://www.americanindependent.com/211906/virginia-ultrasound-bill-at-odds-with-medical-standards