# Rape, Republicans, and Coercian **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 18, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538 "2013-10-18T01:09:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/41 "2013-10-18T03:23:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If “endangered condition” means anything you happen to want it to mean at any particular moment, I guess so. > > If words have meanings, though, then no. These laws, where they exist, apply to all abortions, not just to ones where the patient will die if she doesn’t get an abortion. Yes. Of which medically necessary abortions are a subset, so they, too, apply. In addition, all pregnancies carry health risks, and there are other costs, like having to raise a child. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/42 "2013-10-18T03:53:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nope. Like I said, you don’t seem to understand the difference between “death threat” and “life-threatening”. > > If you’re going to die unless you have, say, a cardiac operation, and you’re required to get some specified additional medical procedure before they’ll operate on you, the fact that you will die without the operation doesn’t negate the fact that you’ve _knowingly consented_ to the additional procedure. I agree that the use of the term “rape” to describe the transvaginal probing is inflammatory and imprecise. I disagree with you as to whether it is coercive, and thus I disagree with your conclusion that it has been consented to. I also find your analogy insufficient, since one presumes the additional procedures serve the purpose of the life saving medical intervention In research studies, principal investigators are prohibited from paying reimbursements for participation that are significantly greater than a reasonable amount for the time and effort required for the activities of the study. This is because it would be coercive to offer someone $10,000 to participate in a risky procedure. They would be less likely to fully evaluate the risks and benefits of the study because they would be unduly influenced by the money. They would not be considered to have given informed consent. In this case, mandating this procedure in order to obtain an actual desired outcome influences the woman’s judgments about the risk/benefit ratio of the transvaginal probe. Since the risk of discomfort, emotional distress and embarrassment is high and the benefit is zero, a reasonable person would not consent to the procedure under normal conditions. In your analogy, the risks of discomfort or pain or what have you for the anciallary procedure are balanced against the benefits of facilitating the life saving procedure. The transvaginal probe as applied in this circumstance is coercive. Consent cannot be given for it. It is not legitimately called rape. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/43 "2013-10-18T04:32:39Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > The transvaginal probe as applied in this circumstance is coercive. Consent cannot be given for it. It is not legitimately called rape. I honestly think you (and several others in the thread) are incorrect here. \*\*WhyNot \*\*has argued a coherent case, using an example of a state law, that this type of procedure could be considered sexual assault (the combination of sexual penetration and invalidation of knowing consent due to deliberate misinformation). Using the term “rape” for a penetrative sexual assault is, IMHO, not illegitimate. If a gynecologist told a woman that a dildo was actually a specialized ultrasound transducer and penetrated her with it, I think reasonable people would call that rape even if she consented to it, since said consent was obtained based on a blatant falsehood. In the case of a pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound, the instrument in question is not being used for any legitimate medical purpose whatsoever, and thus is effectively the same as any other dildo. The fact that the same instrument CAN be legitimately used in a diagnostic ultrasound in a wanted pregnancy to do early assessments of fetal heartbeat is 100% irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/44 "2013-10-18T04:42:21Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I honestly think you (and several others in the thread) are incorrect here. \*\*WhyNot \*\*has argued a coherent case, using an example of a state law, that this type of procedure could be considered sexual assault (the combination of sexual penetration and invalidation of knowing consent due to deliberate misinformation). Using the term “rape” for a penetrative sexual assault is, IMHO, not illegitimate. > > If a gynecologist told a woman that a dildo was actually a specialized ultrasound transducer and penetrated her with it, I think reasonable people would call that rape even if she consented to it, since said consent was obtained based on a blatant falsehood. > > In the case of a pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound, the instrument in question is not being used for any legitimate medical purpose whatsoever, and thus is effectively the same as any other dildo. > > The fact that the same instrument CAN be legitimately used in a diagnostic ultrasound in a wanted pregnancy to do early assessments of fetal heartbeat is 100% irrelevant. That’s a good point. After all a penis can either be an instrument of consensual sex or rape, depending on the circumstance. The fact that the ultrasound wand can be used in a medically appropriate way doesn’t mean it can’t be used in a medically inappropriate way. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/45 "2013-10-18T05:03:23Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s a good point. After all a penis can either be an instrument of consensual sex or rape, depending on the circumstance. > > The fact that the ultrasound wand can be used in a medically appropriate way doesn’t mean it can’t be used in a medically inappropriate way. One can easily turn the genders around, too. It’d (obviously, to me) be rape if my doc told me that I needed a prostate exam because my blood test results indicated a risk factor for cancer if said results indicated no such thing–he’s coerced me by deception into letting him penetrate me in a potentially sexual way. Yet I have every intention of getting prostate exams at the appropriate time and place and not prosecuting my doctor for it. To preempt another argument I’ve heard, I don’t think motive matters. The doctor inserting the vaginal ultrasound probe prior to an abortion and after his government-mandated lies about abortion may not be a rapist, but the woman who consents to the procedure based on the doctor’s lies or her own extreme need for an abortion is a victim of an assault. I recognize it’s fundamentally bizarre to imagine a rape without a rapist, but it’s IMHO equally fundamentally bizarre to have specific medical procedures required by law in the absence of any medical or scientific consensus as to their utility. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/46 "2013-10-18T05:41:33Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 1. A woman goes to her doctor. She says, “I’m pregnant, and I want an abortion.” He says, “Okay. I’m going to schedule you for a vaginal ultrasound, and then we’ll see about terminating your pregnancy.” > > Do you think the woman in scenario 2 is significantly more traumatized than the woman in scenario 1? Do you think she is traumatized to anywhere near the degree of the woman in scenario 3? Why does it matter at all? The ultrasound is in no way medically necessary in scenario 2, so making her get it, and probably have to pay for it, is heaping more mental trauma on top of trauma, not to mention possible financial strain, because some people can keep their noses out of other people’s business and beliefs. > [@Miller](#): > > A question for those that are arguing that this law is rape: > > Who do you think should go to jail for it? Whoever wrote those laws. > [@Kimstu](#): > > This only demonstrates once again that you don’t understand what “coercion” means. It appears that you don’t. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Nope. Like I said, you don’t seem to understand the difference between “death threat” and “life-threatening”. > > If you’re going to die unless you have, say, a cardiac operation, and you’re required to get some specified additional medical procedure before they’ll operate on you, the fact that you will die without the operation doesn’t negate the fact that you’ve _knowingly consented_ to the additional procedure. Oh please. One consents to something that is medically necessary. One is coerced into something that is stupidly & non-medically required in order to get a legal and necessary medical procedure. > [@Zeriel](#): > > To preempt another argument I’ve heard, I don’t think motive matters. The doctor inserting the vaginal ultrasound probe prior to an abortion and after his government-mandated lies about abortion may not be a rapist, but the woman who consents to the procedure based on the doctor’s lies or her own extreme need for an abortion is a victim of an assault. I recognize it’s fundamentally bizarre to imagine a rape without a rapist, but it’s IMHO equally fundamentally bizarre to have specific medical procedures required by law in the absence of any medical or scientific consensus as to their utility. Here you go, all of you apologists for this stupid law. Call it assault instead of rape. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/47 "2013-10-18T06:58:36Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I honestly think you (and several others in the thread) are incorrect here. \*\*WhyNot \*\*has argued a coherent case, using an example of a state law, that this type of procedure could be considered sexual assault (the combination of sexual penetration and invalidation of knowing consent due to deliberate misinformation). Using the term “rape” for a penetrative sexual assault is, IMHO, not illegitimate. > > If a gynecologist told a woman that a dildo was actually a specialized ultrasound transducer and penetrated her with it, I think reasonable people would call that rape even if she consented to it, since said consent was obtained based on a blatant falsehood. > > In the case of a pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound, the instrument in question is not being used for any legitimate medical purpose whatsoever, and thus is effectively the same as any other dildo. > > The fact that the same instrument CAN be legitimately used in a diagnostic ultrasound in a wanted pregnancy to do early assessments of fetal heartbeat is 100% irrelevant. If that’s the case - what if the doctor says “look, this isn’t medically necessary, but some stupid moron lawmaker says we have to do it before you can get your abortion” Is it still rape? If the lady goes to the doctor knowing full well that this will be required, is it still rape? Is a “voluntary” (as in not medically necessary) abortion enough of a bad consequence to make it forced? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/48 "2013-10-18T07:16:50Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Anyway, do you now understand that mandatory vaginal ultrasounds not only do not meet any current legal definition of rape but _cannot_ be rape since they cannot be performed without the patient’s consent? Again, “consent” under coercion isn’t consent. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I have to admit I’d love to hear you trying to explain to a court why a legislator who passed a law requiring a medical procedure that was knowingly consented to by a woman whom the legislator had never even seen should be considered guilty of raping her. > > For an encore, you can explain why the CEO of a credit card company that charges unfairly high interest rates should be convicted on a charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit burglary. That analogy would only work if the CEO was having employees break into people’s homes and steal stuff. And being lied to and coerced is not “knowingly consenting”. And I assume that _ordering_ a sexual assault is a crime even if you don’t personally touch the victim. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/49 "2013-10-18T10:46:30Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I honestly think you (and several others in the thread) are incorrect here. \*\*WhyNot \*\*has argued a coherent case, using an example of a state law, that this type of procedure could be considered sexual assault (the combination of sexual penetration and invalidation of knowing consent due to deliberate misinformation). Using the term “rape” for a penetrative sexual assault is, IMHO, not illegitimate. > > If a gynecologist told a woman that a dildo was actually a specialized ultrasound transducer and penetrated her with it, I think reasonable people would call that rape even if she consented to it, since said consent was obtained based on a blatant falsehood. > > In the case of a pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound, the instrument in question is not being used for any legitimate medical purpose whatsoever, and thus is effectively the same as any other dildo. > > The fact that the same instrument CAN be legitimately used in a diagnostic ultrasound in a wanted pregnancy to do early assessments of fetal heartbeat is 100% irrelevant. Rape connotes, if not denotes, to me sexual acts that are done without consent. So, when they are consented to, they are sex acts. So, if a woman did not consent to a pap smear and we say that is rape, does that mean that when a woman does consent to a pap smear, it is a sexual behavior? Not all things that you do to me without my consent are rape. If you punch me in the jaw, it’s not rape. It is battery though. Not all things done to sexual organs are sex acts. So, if there’s some reason why it makes sense to classify acts of assault or battery that involve sex organs as sexual assault, so be it\*. I’m not seeing how in particular, but I’m ready to believe. But to me the term rape still doesn’t fit. The time that the kid in gym class punched me in the nuts - would that be sexual assault? Would that be rape? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/50 "2013-10-18T11:28:28Z")
ISTM that legislated coercion of consent (or legislated extortion of consent) is going on, and I would be interestef in learning **Kimstu** ’s reason for disagreeing, especially given her agrement that the purpose of the mandate is to be obstructionist and oppressive against women who wish to exercise their legal right to choose to terminate their pregnancies. I’m still not comfortable with using the term “rape,” though, if only because of how it shuts down conversation. I’d also like to raise another point: I’m sure we can all agree that maintaining access to abortion services is necessary if the legal right to abort is to have any meaning. Under a mandate such as the one we’re talking about, the practicioners who are maintaining that access are subjected to coercion no less than their abortion-seeking patients. Anybody feel like characterizing those practicioners as rape victims, too? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/51 "2013-10-18T11:35:01Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Under a mandate such as the one we’re talking about, the practicioners who are maintaining that access are subjected to coercion no less than their abortion-seeking patients. > > Anybody feel like characterizing those practicioners as rape victims, too? Not unless someone is poking things into their orifices. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/52 "2013-10-18T12:05:05Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > If the physician must lie to the patient to obtain consent (and stating that a transvaginal ultrasound is neccesary before a routine abortion is a lie), then I don’t see “knowing consent” being present. Does the doctor have to lie, or does that just simplify things? Can’t the doctor say 'We have to do a transvaginal ultrasound. In no way, shape, or form is it medically necessary, but that’s the law." These laws are awful, but I am not sure it’s the lie alone that makes it awful. It’s the restriction on choice. I also think there is a very close parallel to the voluntary restriction on birth control a lot of doctors make, where they won’t write a prescription for BC unless you’ve had an annual exam/pap, even though the two issues are not directly linked. It’s denying a woman a medical service that she may very desperately need unless she submits to an invasive physical procedure. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/53 "2013-10-18T12:18:11Z")
Am I the only one who read the title, “Rape Republicans, and Coercian” and thought… Okay, I think they deserve to be mocked, but raped?? Is that a Democratic off year elections strategy now? And who the hell is Coercian and how is he/she involved in all this? I’m not down with this at all. Only one, eh? Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/54 "2013-10-18T12:47:20Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > Does the doctor have to lie, or does that just simplify things? Can’t the doctor say 'We have to do a transvaginal ultrasound. In no way, shape, or form is it medically necessary, but that’s the law." Yeah, and I’d actually be happier with that. Much happier, and I hope that’s what’s actually happening in the exam room but it wasn’t what happened in the hypothetical I was responding to. But I don’t think it removes the coercion, either for the patient or the doctor. I’m just as pissed about these transvaginal ultrasound requirements on behalf of the doctors/nurses/technicians as I am on behalf of the patients - who the fuck are lawmakers to determine what medical procedures should be done?! If I was Queen of the World, they’d be charged with practicing medicine without a license. But the question in the OP wasn’t about that, so I didn’t mention it. In the states I’m aware of, there either is a law or there’s a push for a law which requires the doctor to also provide “patient education” or “abortion counseling” which is far more comprehensive and irrelevant (showing D&X procedures to women choosing an ru-486 abortion; fetal development until birth, not at the gestational age of the fetus, describing surgical tools) than for any other surgical procedure. But worse than that, in many states, it’s just _wrong_. As in, counter-factual. As in, lies. [Guttmacher](http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_MWPA.pdf)found: > [@](#): > > 21 states include accurate information on the potential effect of abortion on future fertility; in 6 states, the written materials inaccurately portray this risk. > 5 of the 7 states that include information on breast cancer inaccurately assert a link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer > 8 of the 22 states that include information on possible psychological responses to abortion describe only negative emotional responses > [@](#): > > I also think there is a very close parallel to the voluntary restriction on birth control a lot of doctors make, where they won’t write a prescription for BC unless you’ve had an annual exam/pap, even though the two issues are not directly linked. It’s denying a woman a medical service that she may very desperately need unless she submits to an invasive physical procedure. “A lot of doctors” is not all doctors, nor is the \*state \*mandating that they perform unnecessary PAPs. In fact, their own professional organization is clear that they don’t need to: [QUOTE=[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/733309](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/733309)] Although a medical history and blood pressure are appropriate to obtain prior to prescribing hormonal contraception, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not require cervical cytology or sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening prior to initiating oral or other hormonal contraceptives [/QUOTE] If your doctor requires a PAP - not an annual exam, but a pelvic and PAP - you need to fire him and find a new doctor, because he’s not following the recommendations of his specialty board. It shouldn’t be too hard; more doctors _don’t_ require them than do: [QUOTE=ibid] Approximately 30% of both obstetrician-gynecologists and family physicians indicated that they always require a pelvic examination. Some 45% of primary care nurse practitioners indicated that they always require an examination, while only 17% of women’s health nurse practitioners mandated an examination. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/55 "2013-10-18T13:03:38Z")
I am not on chemical BC and my own experience is well out of date: I just remember being frustrated years ago that my doctor required an exam, and I always thought that if a doctor used, say, viagra prescriptions as leverage for prostate exams, that would be considered patronizing, but the same requirement for women was “for their own good” and so acceptable. I am glad to see the practice is falling out of favor. I am also in no way shape or form suggesting that trans-vaginal ultrasounds requirements are anything other than horrific. I do think the discussion of whether or not they count as rape/sexual assault is counterproductive, however. It’s gray enough that the conversation quickly becomes all about that gray area, and in the end, it’s irrelevant. The requirement is unethical and immoral regardless, and introducing the premise “It’s wrong because it’s rape” suggests that if you can prove it’s not rape, you’ve proved it’s not wrong. It also invites all these silly discussions about what sort of thing is “worse”, as if that is measurable, or even has any meaning. I mean, I can easily construct hypotheticals in which the transvaginal ultrasound would be MORE traumatic than rape, and plenty where it is not. It really doesn’t matter. Both are wrong. Neither should ever be mandated by the state. Only one currently is, so that’s the legislation that needs to be changed. We don’t need to get bogged down in which is more wrong. It’s irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/56 "2013-10-18T14:06:47Z")
Amen. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/57 "2013-10-18T15:17:19Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Just wanted to get you on record as supporting the arrest of your political opponents Oh, puh-leeze. _You_ will be on record as supporting the arrest of your political opponents once you honestly and rationally answer the question “Do you support the arrest of an anarchist/neoNazi/Trotskyite/whatever bomber?” (The precise reason for supporting the arrest does not change the fact that the arrestee is among your political opponents, assuming that you are not an anarchist/neoNazi/Trotskyite/whatever.) The question, as in the old joke about the lady who would sleep with someone for a million dollars but not for ten dollars, is where one draws the line. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/58 "2013-10-18T15:45:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Folks, mandatory vaginal ultrasound laws are bad enough on their own merits to justify strenuously opposing them on those grounds alone. By all means, go ahead and Pit the hell out of such outrageous abuses of our healthcare and legal systems. > > But we don’t have to pretend that such procedures are literally the same as rape in order to be against them. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/59 "2013-10-18T16:15:32Z")
Maybe these mandatory vaginal ultrasounds fall on a continuum between rape and simply unwanted behavior. The question for me would be whether it falls closer to rape or closer to someone touching your leg on the subway To me, its definitely worse than someone touching your leg, but its definitely not as bad as someone tying you up and raping you. I’d say depending on your personal feelings on the subject, it can be rape or not rape. What we don’t get to do as outside observers is to definitively tell a woman whether or not she should consider it rape. If she wants to consider it rape, then its rape. If she doesn’t, then it isn’t. In the debate over the subject, we are forgetting that there’s only one person’s opinion that matters and that is the women’s However, what the debate does accomplish is to sway the opinion of those women and anyone else who’s reading it. I don’t mind Karrius or Der Trihs saying its rape because to them, they believe its rape and want others to believe it too; the easier to get these laws repealed, is probably the subconscious reason. And neither do I mind others disagreeing with them, with the probably subconscious reason that by doing so, it preserves the shocking severity of rape as we know it now, and doesn’t water down something that shouldn’t be watered down ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538/60 "2013-10-18T16:19:41Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Under a mandate such as the one we’re talking about, the practicioners who are maintaining that access are subjected to coercion no less than their abortion-seeking patients. > > Anybody feel like characterizing those practicioners as rape victims, too? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Not unless someone is poking things into their orifices. That’s a bit more facile than I was hoping for. I’ll take responsibility for the lack of clarity, and restate. In their quest to maintain accessibility as an integral part of women’s abortion rights, these practitioners (sorry for botching the spelling before) are essentially being compelled against their will to participate in poking-unwanted-things-into-orifices-related activities. Is there any appetite for characterizing the practitioners as rape victims? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-republicans-and-coercian/671538.md?page=4)