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 you are on the wrong site newbie. This a 100% PRO LIFE, PRO GOD website.
The last time I looked, the children didn’t have a fundamental right to chicken nuggets for lunch but they DO have a fundamental GOD-given right to LIFE. And it is the role of government to secure that right for them although at present the government is not only irresponsible, it is complicit.
The right of life is the most fundamental of all rights. Without life, you have no other rights.
You are correct in one thing. It does take a whole lot of pretending to even consider an ultrasound meeting the demand of due process before an individual life can be taken.
In fact, the ONLY argument that can be made for an abortion is if the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother, iow if the baby is infringing upon the mother’s right to life.
In my haste I made a mistake. I did post that the rights were outlined in the Constitution instead of the Declaration of Independence. I know what our founding documents say and have studied them intently. I am restudying them right now with my children.
But your ad hominen attack is duly noted. Are you denying the fact that we have a fundamental right to life in this country?
So your position on the issue is that the fundamental right of a child to live is trumped by the women’s ‘right’ to not be inconvienced with a simple ultrasound?
You are definitely on the wrong site!
Let me simplify this a little.
Are you pro-life or pro-choice?
Yes, they don’t want the mother to know. Many women would make a very different decision if she knew the truth. Some would not.
Of course according to elvis-lives, fighting for a child’s fundamental right to life is no different than demanding that they eat chicken nuggets from the cafeteria instead of turkey sandwiches packed from home.
Pro-life is pro-choice. The choice is life.
I don’t want the government anywhere in the process. It’s not in the Constitution, it’s not for me.
Do you believe abortion should be legal?
Big government is big government. Intrusion is intrusion. If it’s not in the Constitution, the Gov’t has no role in it and I am not for expanding the role of gov’t.
Supporting life as an individual and trying to convince women not to have abortions, particularly offering alternatives-adoption is admiable, and conservative. Getting the government to force the outcome you want is liberalism.
No Middle ground.
Big government is big government. Intrusion is intrusion. If it’s not in the Constitution, the Gov’t has no role in it and I am not for expanding the role of gov’t.
Supporting life as an individual and trying to convince women not to have abortions, particularly offering alternatives-adoption is admiable, and conservative. Getting the government to force the outcome you want is liberalism.
No Middle ground.
So what is your stance on the laws against murder?
I guess you don’t want big government to secure your right to life either?
You didn’t answer the question.
Should abortion be LEGAL?
Abortion is legal. If you want to change the laws, that is what the Constitution would have us do. Not do some “end around” by the Government.
You want to change the laws, I’ll be for that. I’ll vote for candidates who will do so, but I won’t support intrusions to try to get that result a different way- that is what the libs do.
If you think you will stop abortions by making it illegal you are wrong and truthfully, lazy. As soon as you make abortion illegal it will be 10 seconds before home clinics open and homeabortion kits are for sale on-line. You have to change hearts to stop abortion and this big gov’t intrusion is not the way.
It also gives the libs cover when they want to impose themselves onus outside of the Constitution.
Yes abortion is legal.
The question is, do YOU think it should be illegal?
A yes or no will suffice.
The question is not “should abortion be legal?” The question should be, “should abortion take place?”
The answer to the second question is NO.
How do we get there? If you think you get there by making it illegal, you are wrong. You will only make abortion as rare as drinking during prohibition or smoking pot now. We can pass laws and pat each other on the back while abortions still take place, or we can work on changing hearts and really stop abortions.
Like I said. Making abortion illegal is not the question (I don’t care either way as long as I don’t have to pay for it). The goal is STOPPING Abortion, which is a different thng from making abortion illegal.
You answer like a politician. But you have shown your hand. It is clear that you think the government has no business making laws to protect the fundamental rights of it’s smallest citizens. You are pro choice. Let the woman decide. Let us persuade her with our words but not with laws.
The ONLY difference in killing a child in the womb and killing him or her minutes after birth is the legality. One is called abortion and the other murder. Why are you okay with allowing the woman to choose one and not the other?
Let’s suppose that it was legal for your (hypothetical) daughter to take your 1 month old granddaughter to the doctor and have her ‘put to sleep’. Would you try to convince her by your words while saying the government shouldn’t be involved? Would you be against ANY intrusion imposed by government to make your daughter stop and think about her decision? I think not!
From your posts, it is clear that you do not consider a baby in the womb as being a human worthy of equal protection under the law; the same protection that you enjoy. If you did, you would understand that this isn’t about big government intrusion but protection of rights which IS the proper role of government.
We should change hearts and laws. Murder is illegal but murders still take place. Maybe we should just make it legal, safe and rare.
Pro-abort noob troll ping.
IBTZ
There is a purpose for making abortion illegal. It is the proper role of government to secure our rights for us.
Do you think a baby in the womb is a human being? Do you think human beings have fundamental God given rights? Do you think the proper role of government is to secure our God given rights?
I answer yes to them all.
Therefore a baby in the womb is a human being with a fundamental God given right to life that should be protected by the government.
Please try to refute that!
There is no such thing as a “smallest citizen”. There are only citizens, and all are equal under the law.
The Constitution does not recognize a fetus as a citizen. You want to work to change this, fine. Then yoyu will have a solid footing for making abortion illegal, but what I am saying is that is taking the long, long, long way around.
If you change hearts so that people don’t seek out abortions there will be none, regardless if they are legal. That’s reality.
Am I in favor of women making their own decisions- HELL YES!!! I am a conservative!!! I am also a Catholic, so I work to change hearts so if they choose to bring the child into the world- nothing to do with GOVERNMENT!!!!
Abortion should be illegal as it was for years.
It's not big government to keep murder illegal. It's big government to sanction certain forms of murder so that certain groups of people can be killed without consequence or repercussion, by certain other groups of people.
All forms of murder need to be kept illegal.
No more time for big government liberals.
Liberals in many ways. Believe Government is the answer. Believe people can’t make their own decisions. Touchy-feely instead of logic.
I have not time or patience.
“The Constitution does not recognize a fetus as a citizen”
Oh wow! You said all I need to know. Fetus is a word used to describe the stage of development of a human being. It has been co-opted by the left to dehumanize a baby in the womb. Your use of ‘fetus’ in that sentence is very telling.
The Constitution also does not specifically name an infant, toddler, or adolescent. You will notice that it does provide liberty for them AND their posterity. What is a baby in the womb except for the posterity of our nation?
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
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.