-255x255.jpg)
RICHMOND, Va. — A campaign by pro-abortion forces to portray a particular kind of ultrasound used in early pregnancy as invasive and tantamount to rape seems to have paid off in Virginia.
Gov. Bob McDonnell initially supported a bill that required a woman have an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion, then backtracked last week and asked for an overhaul of the bill that seriously dilutes it.
While not entirely abandoning the ultrasound bill, McDonnell called for amendments specifically banning the transvaginal ultrasound, which is required to pick up a baby’s heartbeat early in a pregnancy. Abortion-rights activists singled out this procedure as invasive — even comparing it to an act of rape.
It was this scaled-back bill that Virginia’s Republican-controlled Senate approved Tuesday, Feb. 28, in a 21-19 vote that fell along party lines.
Because an amendment was added in the Senate, the bill now must go back to the House of Delegates for another vote.
But the rhetoric by abortion advocates appears to have been effective in weakening the bill that just passed.
In putting forward his amendment last week, McDonnell said, “Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. ... No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.”
“We considered the campaign against the ultrasound bill disingenuous and absolutely false,” said Kristi Hamrick, spokeswoman for Americans United for Life. “It was a very vindictive campaign against the bill and an attack on Governor McDonnell, portraying him as not being women-friendly.”
On Feb. 24, state Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel, R-Winchester, who sponsored the original ultrasound bill, requested that the Senate scrap her bill.
The Senate agreed to strike the Vogel bill, which meant that the amended bill approved by the Senate Tuesday was the only hope left for those who believe that an ultrasound should be part of informed consent before an abortion.
Vogel’s legislative aide Tricia Stiles told the Register late last week that her decision was the result of “a lot of misinformation” regarding the bill. She said that Vogel plans to support the House bill when it comes to the Senate.
“Unfortunately, Senator Vogel’s bill became known as ‘the transvaginal bill,’” said Stiles. “We know that abortion clinics do transvaginal ultrasounds all the time. But, suddenly, it was being said that Senator Vogel is in favor of rape for the women of Virginia.”
“The vast majority of the women of Virginia who campaigned against this bill did not understand that the transvaginal ultrasound is already common practice,” said Stiles.
Stiles characterized opponents of the bill as saying, “Let’s find a way to defeat this bill, and the way to defeat this bill is to scare women into believing that they are going to be raped by the state of Virginia.”
The term “transvaginal ultrasound” was not used in the original bills, which only stated that an ultrasound must be conducted before an abortion. There was no requirement that the women look at the ultrasound, though the bills stipulated that the patient had to be clearly informed that she had the right to see it.
“The unfortunate thing is that pro-abortion groups have hijacked the debate and manipulated the facts by talking about the transvaginal ultrasound,” said Olivia Gans, president of the Virginia Society for Human Life.
“When pro-abortion people are fighting a reasonable bill like this one,” said Gans, “they will pull out all the stops. They did more than misrepresent. They deliberately lied about this procedure. The transvaginal ultrasound pales in comparison to the invasiveness of the procedures that are about to be used in an abortion.”
Gans asserted that abortion advocates opposing the bill were often organizations or individuals engaged in providing abortions. “When your livelihood is threatened,” said Gans, “you go full tilt.”
An ultrasound is commonly performed in an abortion facility before an abortion. If the abortion is conducted early in the pregnancy, when the unborn child is still very small, a transvaginal ultrasound is necessary.
NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia’s executive director, Tarina Keene, admitted that “the providers I deal with do offer ultrasounds,” but she insisted that “for the state to intervene is where we draw the line.”
Keene said she supports the HHS mandate requiring faith-based institutions to pay for insurance policies that provide contraception even if they find it morally objectionable, however, because “I feel birth control is basic health care.”
“You can make a good case that this procedure is not only invasive, but you could also possibly label it as ‘rape,’ not that I was necessarily talking about it that way,” Keene said.
Several opponents of the bill, including Keene, have asserted that the term “rape,” as defined in the Code of Virginia, might apply to a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound. But, while the relevant section of the code (18.2-61) focuses on acting against a person’s will, the section specifically mentions sexual intercourse, and it would, therefore, be quite a stretch to extend the definition to a transvaginal ultrasound, even a mandatory one.
NARAL’s Keene acknowledged that the effort to highlight the “invasiveness” of the transvaginal ultrasound helped shift public opinion.
“Once you start talking about an invasive procedure and saying that a woman has to pay hundreds of dollars [for an ultrasound] to access a constitutional right to abortion, it changes the conversation,” said Keene.
She noted that the campaign against the ultrasound bill “took off” only after Delegate David Englin referred to “sexual penetration” in talking about the bill.
She added that “using the word ‘vagina’ always stirs up people.”
Although the Virginia campaign is far from being the first time the abortion-rights advocates have used colorful language, even The Washington Post took note of what it called “a shift in abortion-rights rhetoric” that was especially pronounced in Virginia.
The newspaper quoted Anna Esacove, a sociologist at Muhlenberg College, who studies the politics of abortion.
“In any of these contests, you need to get people passionate,” Esacove was quoted saying. “Framing this as rape creates a passionate response for people who are against the laws. Even if people don’t think it’s rape, it gets people talking about it.”
Like the Komen Campaign
Talking wasn’t all. The bill became the subject of ridicule from the pro-abortion side, mocked in a skit on Saturday Night Live and by comedian Jon Stewart, who called it “a TSA pat down in your vagina.”
“Ridicule is the favorite propaganda weapon of those who can’t refute the argument,” said Paul Rondeau, executive director for the American Life League.
“What you see happening in Virginia is related to the national picture,” said Rondeau. “Nothing happens in a vacuum. The pro-abortion side sees itself losing the battle and so it is becoming more volatile, vicious and strident with its rhetoric.”
Rondeau noted that the pro-life side enjoyed a number of state-level legislative successes last year. He also compared the tenor of the campaign against the Virginia ultrasound bill to the recent assault against Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a cancer-advocacy foundation, when the organization announced it would no longer fund Planned Parenthood. Komen has since apologized for the decision and has since said it will once again accept funding requests from Planned Parenthood.
If the ultrasound bill passes, Virginia will join seven other states (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) in requiring that women must undergo ultrasounds before having an abortion.
Only Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina require women to listen to a description of the ultrasound by the abortionist.
The Oklahoma and North Carolina laws are facing court challenges, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the right of the state of Texas to enact the law.
Keene said that the Virginia law garnered a great deal of national attention because McDonnell, who is Catholic, has been mentioned as a possible running mate for the eventual Republican presidential nominee.
“There is a spotlight on our state,” Keene said, “because our governor has made it known that he would be glad to take the second spot on a Republican ticket. He’s a social conservative who has portrayed himself as a moderate. He wanted to keep a low profile.”
Meanwhile, a spokesman for Gov. McDonnell, Tucker Martin, countered that, while serving in the General Assembly, the governor was the author of the state’s 2001 bill requiring informed consent before an abortion is performed.
“The governor has been consistent. He supports an ultrasound as part of Virginia’s informed consent,” said Martin.
Martin declined to comment on the campaign against the ultrasound bill or claims that the transvaginal ultrasound is invasive.
Keene, with NARAL, insists that this issue has attracted so much attention because McDonnell wants to be known as a moderate. But Martin, the governor’s spokesman, said: “The governor is focused on Virginia. That is his job. As far as people want to talk about this as having a place in the national debate, we’ll leave that to pundits and activists.”
Despite McDonnell’s pulling back, Olivia Gans of the Virginia Society for Human Life says that the governor still backs the modified bill, and “that’s a positive.”
Abortion-rights advocates, however, won’t be mollified by the governor’s partial retreat. Keene said that the new language still won’t make the bill acceptable.
Meanwhile, the General Assembly has tabled a bill that would grant personhood rights from the moment of conception until next year, which ensures that abortion will remain a hot issue in Virginia for some time to come.
Register correspondent Charlotte Hays writes from Washington.
Janet Morana: Who Were the Early Feminists in the U.S.?
Edward Pentin: High Expectations for Rome March for Life 2013
Comments
Post a Comment
Not exactly a profile in courage.
First of all, I am completely pro-life. I believe that abortion is a grave moral evil, in all cases.
But even I have reservations about the original version of this bill.
I have had a transvaginal ultrasound in the early stages of pregnancy. It IS an invasive procedure where a wand is inserted into the vagina. Yes, likening to procedure to rape is going too far, but I think it is right for the governor to exercise caution before requiring a procedure like this.
Of course the abortion itself is FAR more instrusive, and since it ends the life of a human being, having to get a transvaginal ultrasound beforehand is a small price to pay.
However, the images from this early kind of ultrasound show a shape that is not recognizably human, at least to anyone but the trained technician performing the procedure. The beating heart is the only recognizable sign, as I recall. I can hardly imagine that being nearly as effective in discouraging abortion as the resentment at the requirement would be in encouraging it.
We have to be cautious about the legislation we propose and support. No politician who backs that version of the bill will be reelectable, and controversy over this requirement could cause serious setbacks in achieving other effective pro-life legislative goals. I hate to get political, but that’s how it is.
The other “jelly on the belly” ultrasound that is performed later in pregnancy is non-invasive, and I strongly support requiring one before the abortion of a child who is old enough to be viewed by one.
From a prudential and tactical perspective, it is a mistake for the pro-life movement to advocate mandatory performance and viewing of ultrasounds. A better pro-life initiative is legislation ensuring that women will have the opportunity to choose to view a sonogram and to hear the heartbeat of their unborn child. Such voluntary ultrasound laws, exemplified by a bill now before the Illinois legislature (HB4085), have a much better chance of surviving court challenges. In addition, voluntary bills cannot be ridiculed by our opponents during discussions of coerced vaginal probes. Such derision will be a public relations disaster for the pro-life movement and will thwart our efforts to bear moral witness to the right to be born. Voluntary sonogram laws will still save the lives of many unborn children. Finally, if our legislation offers to women the choice to enhance their informed consent, how can those who irrationally call prenatal homicide a “choice” argue against such bills persuasively?
I urge the editors of the National Catholic Register to insist that all readers commenting on articles have the courage to sign their comments with their full names.
The “pro-life Catholic” Bob McDonnell got spooked by Planned Parenthood’s rhetoric and saw his ambitions for higher office being threatened as a consequence. McDonnell sold out the unborn for a spot on the pro-abort Romney’s ticket. Craven.
It was a strategic retreat.
The pro-abortion side got their message out in a way that McDonnell had to back down or he would be seen as a monster. The issue was framed as conservative men raping women, even though the procedure is routine and a woman was the original sponsor of the bill.
And yes, it’s pro-abortion, not pro-choice because anyone who supported “choice” would want women to have the most informed choice possible.
Stephen, your suggestion is excellent, and I hope you will write to your legislators and propose such a law!
“The pro-abortion side got their message out in a way that McDonnell had to back down or he would be seen as a monster. The issue was framed as conservative men raping women, even though the procedure is routine and a woman was the original sponsor of the bill.”
1. The Pro-life side made the “first move” by proposing to mandate an invasive medical procedure that is unnecessary and got caught in the open when the bill emerged for a vote. What ever happened to “not getting the government between you and your doctor”?
2. The frame is accurate, so get used to it. A lot of people find the GOP’s fixation on woman reproductive freedoms odious so get used to the fame - it fits.
The state should not be defining what is “proper medical technique.” That is for physicians to decide. Where is the outrage at regular prostate exams for men over 50? Trust me, that’s pretty invasive, too, yet there is no shortage of “public health” advocacy for them.
Since when is Planned Parenthood worried about “invasive”?
I am a physician, and so invasive generally means a procedure that crosses protected tissue boundaries. Invasive generally is a bad thing if it causes an infection or does some other harm like cuasing a miscarriage. “Invasive” as used by the abortion lobby, may be extending the definintion to emotionally invasive. The article didn’t mention whether there were documented health risks involved with the transvaginal ultrasound; tthe biggest risk is probably just incidence of infection if non-sterile technique is used.
On the other hand, undergoing an abortion is terribly invasive physically and emotionally, so that this procedure should not be taken lightly unless all chances to find an acceptable alternative are exhausted. I would generally be in favor of a mandated ultrasound prior to an abortion especially if the TV ulatrasound is an extremely low-risk procedure.
And an abortion isn’t invasive and tantamount to rape?
1. The Pro-life side made the “first move” by proposing to mandate an invasive medical procedure that is unnecessary and got caught in the open when the bill emerged for a vote. What ever happened to “not getting the government between you and your doctor”?
2. The frame is accurate, so get used to it. A lot of people find the GOP’s fixation on woman reproductive freedoms odious so get used to the fame - it fits.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/va.-governor-dilutes-pro-life-bill?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2012-02-28#ixzz1nnDfHrTm
The fact is, the original bill didn’t specifiy what type was required. If abortionists wanted to get around the law by using the “Jelly on the belly” ultra sound, then they could. Heck, I suspect most of them would get a kick out of doing it in the pregnacies early stages knowing it wouldn’t work; it would make the conservatives look like idiots. the fact is they didn’t want to stop at that: They wanted to paint pro-lifers as rapists and monsters. It is a blatent smear campain set up to make the right hated and dispised for something they didn’t even say or try to do.
Once you start talking about an invasive procedure and saying that a woman has to pay hundreds of dollars [for an ultrasound] to access a constitutional right to abortion, it changes the conversation
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/va.-governor-dilutes-pro-life-bill?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2012-02-28#ixzz1nnFz8w9U
The unborn child is living, the unborn child is genetically human, the unborn child is innocent… In al senses of the word! Where in the Constitution, pray tell, dose it allow women and doctors to kill innocent human life?
No governemtn should be amndating invasive medical procedures that serve no medical prupose for the patient. This bill is about is about dangerous extremists trying to control women.
Joy and Stephen, its my understanding that women in a first trimestet abortion are required, by PP in order to confirm the pregnancy and the baby’s age, health, etc. I think the new law only requires that the woman view it. That ia why this makes no sense…PP is going ultrasound them the same way. Why not, in allowing for full medical disclosure, have them see, ask questions, and rhen sifn. I imagine more than 50% of women who saw an ultrasound and then given, in laymens teems, a description of the procedure would opt for a truly less inbasive option…like adoption. Having an abortion sounds so much scerener than, ripping my baby into peices or burnimg him with chemicals…
Maggie, I was going to post the same thing. I had an early pregnancy ultrasound when we had difficulty getting pregnant. The specialist told me we needed to know if the baby had implanted properly so we did a trans-vaginal ultrasound. (If the implantation was not advantageous, I would have had to be on bed rest.) Not at all like rape; the technician explained to me how to help with the procedure and we were able to see that my son was ‘in a good place’ so our minds were relieved. I was approximately 4 weeks from conception at that point. And Lisa, there is a medical purpose to early stage ultrasounds - they provide the patient with information as to what is happening within her body so she can give full informed consent to the ‘procedure’ she wishes to obtain (or her boyfriend, or mother, or boyfriend’s mother wants her to have.) Also, no government should be mandating that anyone should have to pay for what is another person’s choice and responsibility. If I am a vegetarian, I should not have to pay for your steak dinner, although I recognize your right to eat steak. Same goes for the contraception ‘mandate’ - if you want to use contraception, it’s a free country, but that’s your personal choice which you don’t want me to dictate to you. Therefore, because it is your choice and not a requirement, you should be responsible for what comes with the choice - the cost of the contraception. So-called “Free Contraception” is just a way for the government to funnel money to pharmaceutical companies.
Folks, seriously, I don’t know what coverage you’re reading. The original did not say a thing about transvaginal ultrasounds, and the new version only does so to clarify that it isn’t required. Nobody is forcing the woman to get it or to view it; she can opt out of both. The point is that THEY must offer it and she must be informed that she has a right to it, because they are in the position of profiting from ignorance. Lisa, that’s what it’s about, and I think it’s insane to rely on the clinics all to just police themselves when they have a financial interest in keeping women from bailing. These women are vulnerable and could easily be (and often are) taken advantage of by the unscrupulous, not because they are stupid or something, but because of the nature of the situation.
-
As for calling it “rape”—please. It’s times like these when, I’m sorry to say, I’m embarrassed for my gender; I know it’s not just us who freak out over shadowy bogeymen, but it doesn’t cast us in the greatest light either, fulfilling certain stereotypes to a T. It’s positively irrational. Are we not getting our annual pelvic exams like the grown-ups we are, or what? I would be lying if I said it was comfortable, but there’s nothing “sexual” about it and I certainly wouldn’t call it “rape.” So, tubal ligation is essential medicine according to HHS, and that’s fine, but an apparently common diagnostic procedure is some horrific nightmare? Give me a break.
Folks, seriously, I don’t know what coverage you’re reading. The original did not say a thing about transvaginal ultrasounds, and the new version only does so to clarify that it isn’t required. Nobody is forcing the woman to get it or to view it; she can opt out of both. The point is that THEY must offer it and she must be informed that she has a right to it, because they are in the position of profiting from ignorance. Lisa, that’s what it’s about, and I think it’s insane to rely on the clinics all to just police themselves when they have a financial interest in keeping women from bailing. These women are vulnerable and could easily be (and often are) taken advantage of by the unscrupulous, not because they are stupid or something, but because of the nature of the situation.
-
As for calling it “rape”—please. It’s times like these when, I’m sorry to say, I’m embarrassed for my gender (somebody has to say this); I know it’s not just us who freak out over shadowy bogeymen, but it doesn’t cast us in the greatest light either, fulfilling certain stereotypes to a T. It’s positively irrational. Are we not getting our annual pelvic exams like the grown-ups we are, or what? I would be lying if I said it was comfortable, but there’s nothing “sexual” about it and I certainly wouldn’t call it “rape.” So, tubal ligation is essential medicine according to HHS, and that’s fine, but an apparently common diagnostic procedure is some horrific nightmare? Give me a break.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.