The Left’s outrageous outrage at a proposal to require ultrasounds before abortion (It's "Rape"?)

Hot Air ^ | FEBRUARY 19, 2012 | TINA KORBE

[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.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

I know. Abortion needs to be outlawed. As long as it is legal though we need to do what we can to inform people, to make access harder. Not everyone will change their minds because of an ultrasound but some will. It isn’t the ultimate goal but it’s all we have right now.

[DNA.2012]

It isn’t all though.

States need to pass laws banning abortion and flat out spite the oligarchs of the Supreme Court.

[RobbyS]

A baby is the cute little thing that lies in the crib. How do you persuade them that that is the same thing as a ferilized egg? Feminists have done their level best to dissuade women that from the moment of conception that a baby exists. Many of THEM believe that early on it is just a clump of cells, or as one nurse put it, an undifferentiated tumor. How DOES one love a tiny little thing as small as THIS: .? Requires an act of faith.

[DNA.2012]

How DOES one love a tiny little thing as small as THIS: .

Easily, as to do so is the most natural thing in the world.

Failing to love one's sons and daughters from their beginnings is the unnatural thing.

[RobbyS]

Only if you think of them as your son or daughter. People find it easy to harden their hearts to brothers and sisters,

[Bellflower]

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.

So you think that all murder should be legal? There is no difference between a human being that is yet in the womb or a few minutes later out. She/he is the same person. Since murder does and will take place lets not have it be illegal but lets just try to change hearts so as to cause people to not want to murder. Lets do the same with robbery, rape, assault, and every other crime. Lets just try to change hearts and forget about prisons and electric chairs. Or wait, what about justice? What about deterrent? What about having just laws to prosecute those that are doing heinous brutal crimes such as murdering helpless, beautiful and innocent children?