Fucking Republican perverts. Sick obsession with women's bodies and now resort to state sanctioned rape. Women and men had better show their outrage.

It looks like this same bunch of idiots are also about to pass a "personhood" law stating that a fertilized egg is a "person." Fucking Neanderthals.

I hope this happens.

"Virginia is for lovers." Virginia is not for women who have made or been forced to "make love." Nasty nasty nasty fucking theocrats.

I've been fucking furious ever since I saw the segment on Rachel's show. I can hardly bear to think about it, because it conjurs up images of a young rape victim crying as she is raped again, this time by the state, in order to punish her for not wanting to carry the first rapists baby.

Since I understand punching motherfucker asswipe politicians in the throat is frowned on, please Dan help us non Virginians out. I want to help stop this. I want to help to create a Komen style scandal out of this. What can out of staters do?

Let's face it. According to the GOP, women are not people: they are property with fewer rights a barely differentiated cluster of cells. They belong to the State, and when the State tells them to submit, then God help them if they don't.

And you thought A Handmaid's Tale was a work of fiction.

Republicans are terrible people. They really are. Their leaders are greedy bullies with sex problems, and the rank-and-file are angry morons desparately searching for someone to blame for their personal failures.

I think people objecting to this can get a lot of attention using the term "vaginal probe": not only does it sound creepy as hell, it's the sort of thing that will get the hand-wringers screeching about the children, which gives us another reason to bring it up.

This is what happens when you give government over to one single-minded religious party. This is why we’re supposed to have a separation of church and state. This is why we’re supposed to have an educated electorate. THIS IS WHY THEOCRACIES DON’T WORK. We are supposed to have balances in our government. We’re supposed to have debate. We’re supposed to have rational, un-ultra-religious representatives.

Let’s consider this as a warning and not allow religious republican nut jobs to take over our state. Virginia may be able to climb out of their pit, but let’s not let Washington join them in there. Can we please not elect McKenna?

As a Virginian I am face-palming right now. We are quickly turning into Mississippi. This is what happens when you elect a bunch of American Taliban who care more about controlling women than fixing the economy. It's disgusting.

I've had a vaginal sonograph probe. It's not fun, it feels invasive and though medically necessary at the time, I do not want to ever go through it again. There should be a federal law that prohibits male lawmakers from deciding issues that affect women!

OK. Let's propose that any man in the state of Virginia must undergo an internal ultrasound exam of their rectums if they want a prescription for erectile dysfunction drugs. Or testosterone treatment. Got to check that prostate, yo.

This is incredibly horrific and I'm absolutely enraged. Yes, it is state sanctioned rape.

Oh, and don't forget this little tidbit. The one thing that helps prevent cervical cancer has been been undercut by the American Taliban.

House Passes Bill Lifting HPV Vaccine Rule

http://www.richmondsunlight.com/blog/201…

Virginia is for Women-Haters!

@11 One of the representatives tried that and was blocked. It got attention, though, and probably helped get this in the national spotlight.

@10 I’ve had that done twice – once for a miscarriage and another for a possible miscarriage (fetus was fine and is now a delightful child). Those are uncomfortable and intrusive when you want* to have one. I can’t imagine having one done against my wishes.

And instead of making a law against men making laws that affect women (since all laws will affect women) let’s focus on electing sane women and getting religious men out of government.

*not that you really want one, but want/need to have one for medical reasons AND your own peace of mind.

@9
Fixing the economy is hard.

Let's probe vaginas!

I thought the conservatives' main objection to health care reform is that the state shouldn't dictate how a doctor should treat a patient.

The American Taliban has to assault women to get the base really riled up.

Actually, what this needs is a political cartoon to be used on a poster. I can't draw worth shit, but there are loads of artistic types here on Slog.

Here's what I'd like to see: A caricature of Governor Bob McDonald, with a drooling leer, his hand holding some giant medical-looking probe attached to a machine, shoving it up the short skirt of a very young and terrified girl, from behind, her face turned so you can see utter distress and tears.

Draw it! Then let's caption it and release it as a poster.

All I've got to add right now is that I feel nauseous. Seriously, this makes me queasy. Glad I don't live in Virginia:(

@18 Oh, wait. I've got a simple but eye-catching caption for your consideration:

RAPE!

Disgusting. Makes me literally want to puke. I say anal probes for all republican elected officials in the VA chamber. And that shit-for-brains governor most of all. I almost hope he becomes the VP nominee for the GOP, just so I have a chance to wave that anal probe in his face at one of the rallies that will no doubt come to Ohio.

@18 Here's a very tame version of the same idea, and for you artists out here working on my challenge, this is what the probe looks like:

http://getfile7.posterous.com/getfile/fi…

@9 I'm also a Virginian and an active Democrat and this is depressing as hell. But I also have to say, this is what happens when people get complacent. The Personhood bill is another piece of reactionary theocratic garbage thrown at us by Side-show Bob Marshall. Trying to rally Democrats in '09 (Deeds), '10 (Periello) and '11 (Houck) has been terrible (we are oh so lucky in VA to have nearly constant elections). In fact, the backlash, ever since Obama's election turning VA blue in '08 has been horrific. Well, elections have consequences. The most remarkable of which has been that in every state where the "economic issues" GOP and "Tea Party" (radical wing of the GOP) has taken power, the very first items on the agenda have been stripping the rights of women and sexual minorities.

I'm pissed, but I'm just about as pissed at all of the "independent" (oblivious) women who haven't been bothered to either come out and vote or recognize the implications of the policy preferences of these whackjobs. Far, far too many women of fertile age are - due to living memory - completely oblivious to what life was like before access to birth control and safe, legal abortion. They walk around in denial that this could ever happen to them, and assume that access will be protected and always available, if it does.

To some extent - and I'm a middle-aged dude - I'm tired of playing Cassandra, and I say, fine, screw 'em. If this is what it takes to make them wake up and go vote!!!!!, then fine.

One election - Edd Houck (VA 17th) - decided this - by only 222 votes. Edd was a long time Democrat and was unseated by a GOP newcomer. Before that we had a Senate majority and could block the worst of the GOP crazy excesses.

My family has been here for nearly 400 years, but I'm about ready to leave. I'm waiting to hear what kind of impact the "zygotes are persons" bill has on Stem-Cell research..the war on science and higher education has been non-stop since 2009.

I'll see what I can do about protesting this...I kind of like Dan's idea, but let's see.

Require a prostrate exam for every refilling of a viagra prescription.

I think that the very first time this procedure actually happens against a woman's will she should charge the doctor or technician with rape.

Gah!! How can one consider shoving a probe inside a woman's vagina against her will to be anything other than state mandated rape? This is fucking obscene! I can't believe it got a single vote, much less a majority.

I wish we could take the rape-baby out of the rhetoric. The reality is that far more women who are pregnant not as a result of rape will be affected, and saying things like "now she'll be raped twice," while true enough (and horrific enough), serves to silently condone the probing of women who got pregnant as a result of consensual sex. Those sluts deserve the probe.

I understand why people bring up the "pregnant-by-her-rapist" figure in these discussions, but the implications seem to me to serve the lamentable purpose of demonizing any woman who voluntarily has sex. I think it's a dangerous step backward to virgin/whore-land.

Is David Foster Wallace scripting this from heaven? I just can't stop laughing at how INSANE this law is.

Just had this procedure done last month for a gyne problem and it was uncomfortable bordering on outright painful. And I'm not some scared 14-year-old or a traumatized rape victim. This is horrific and makes me furious. God damn these motherfuckers all to hell.

BTW seeing as this transvaginal probe is being used to discourage abortions in the first place, who's to say whether it will be employed as a discouraging penalty with other laws?

* Park in a disabled spot? Transvaginal probe.
* Download pirated movie? Transvaginal probe.
* Violate IMF-imposed spending constraints? Transvaginal probe. (That means you, Greece!)

We need some photoshops of this lovely Governor:

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2011/04/b… (I can see a nice big probe in his hand)

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_f… ("You're next!")

I'm another who has had a couple vaginal sonograms. It is intrusive and uncomfortable. The second left me doubled over unable to walk, but that was due to the additional camera that needed to go beyond the cervix. I needed those sonograms, they were expensive too. I can imagine worse experiences, but this bill is another sick hoop for women to jump through.

Sick, sick, sick. I had it because it was necessary, and still it was humiliating, degrading and uncomfortable. Barbaric.

So here is a link to a nice, completely medically accurate, non-exploitive but still very disturbing, graphic showing the use of one of these wands of misery: http://www.cancer.umn.edu/cancerinfo/NCI…

@20, I think you've misunderstood me. By asking what non-Virginians could do, I certainly didn't mean to imply all Virginians would be in favor of this horrific law. I'm well aware that many Virginians are rational and compassionate people. What I meant is that since I'm nowhere near Virginia I can't do much in terms of direct action (showing up to protest, putting up signs etc.) but I'd still like to help, so if there's any way people who don't get to vote for these bastards and/or can't physically show up and protest can nonetheless contribute to the fight, I'd appreciate knowing that.

I also had a needed one. I didn't find it "humiliating" or "degrading," because it was necessary, but it was damned uncomfortable and intrusive. However, the whole purpose of it being used as the bill warrants, is to humiliate, degrade, and disgrace the woman receiving it. And just who is supposed to pay for this expensive and unnecessary procedure? You can bet insurance won't cover it!

The Virginia GOP is absolutely scurrilous. Such incredible misogyny.

@24 As an ex-virginian woman who also volunteered in local campaigns for years, I HEAR you! Everybody needs to start taking their civic duty more seriously, or we end up with these zealots in office who say that women's lives are worth less than a bunch of cells, or that abortions are just a matter of "lifestyle convenience". Insulting.

Let's not forget governor Bob McDonnell has a long track record of hating women, single mothers, alternative lifestyle choices, day cares, working women, the list goes on (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co…)

@26 - there are two problems with that:

1) we don't want to make the rather brave and sympathetic-to-our-cause doctors the targets of our anger.

2) It will be bundled with the procedure, so that any woman who seeks an abortion will sign a consent form (as they do now) for all parts of the procedure, and I'm sure that will indemnify the provider.

Since I'm not a vagina owner, I'm curious about those of you who are and have experienced this: how does this compare with experiencing a D&C? My understanding is that a non-abortive D&C and an "abortion" (D&E) are nearly identical. I have the impression either of those is much worse than this probe.

Messed up that link: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co…

Not to give these troglodytes any benefit of the doubt, but I have worked in three abortion clinics in three different states and everyone already gets a vaginal ultrasound. No MD will perform an abortion without getting an accurate dating of the pregnancy and vaginal ultrasounds are the best way to date early (very small) pregnancies (when most abortions take place).

Don't get my wrong: I'm still appalled that these goons are mandating medical procedures instead of leaving those decisions up to medical professionals.

If this passes, everyone who voted for this thing ought to get hauled en masse in front of a judge and charged with multiple counts of statutory rape.

Not that it'll ever happen.

Virginia Out of My Vagina!

@alb - I'm very familiar with McDonnell and you're right, he's a piece of work. He is a short man, and has short man syndrome. I think misogyny goes with the territory.

@39: I had the transvaginal ultrasound as a precursor to a D&C, to confirm that my fetus had stopped developing (I had a "blighted ovum" type of miscarriage, but my body didn't expel the not-really-fetus, and I decided to get the D&C so I could start the healing and get ready to try and conceive again as soon as possible). In my case, my reactions to the two procedures was affected by my emotional state: during the ultrasound, I was nervous and scared that something was horribly wrong with the baby (as indeed it was), and so I endured it with a sense of fear mixed with gratitude that there was such a procedure possible so that I could get real information. It was uncomfortable, but not really painful for me, and I experienced no physical after-effects. The D&C (which happened about two hours later), was tinged with grief and a terror that somehow the earlier confirmation that there was no viable fetus had been wrong and that now I was "killing" my wanted baby, even though I knew absolutely that there was no "baby" to kill. It was slightly painful, and I experienced cramping afterward, though the physical pain was nothing compared to the emotional sense of loss.

But I can imagine that if I was pregnant unintentionally, and had come to the difficult decision to terminate that pregnancy, the transvaginal ultrasound would be a different experience entirely.

When I was pregnant, my friends called the vaginal ultrasound wand the dildo-cam. It is indeed very much like being penetrated with a dildo. A bit of a shock to me the first time my doctor inserted it. I assumed all ultrasounds were done with those wands they wave over the abdomen.

@39 - and what would the point be in knowing that? I can understand general curiosity, but if the procedure was totally painless, it's still a GROSS invasion of the woman's privacy.

I can also see @41's point, but like couchetard said: leave that up to the medical professionals who are trained to know this, not politicians.

I am very VERY cautious about throwing the word "rape" around, especially where it doesn't literally refer to sexual assault. I am glad that Mr. Savage specifically mentioned that this is a matter of the legal definition.

And yes, I think that throwing pictures of vaginas--ultrasound or otherwise--would indeed distract and disrupt the VA state legislature.

@ 39,

Mine ended up being followed by a sonohystography with endometrial biopsy, and finally with a D&C. And a bonus blood test to prove I wasn't pregnant (Catholic hospital) before the D&C. Each was increasingly more painful and invasive.

I can imagine that forcing women to go under a transvaginal ultrasound is about forcing her to make a decision while lying naked (at least from the waste down) with her legs spread apart and view images of a developing fetus. The goal isn't her health, as it was for me, it is about making her feel vulnerable, a bit violated, humiliated, and being no longer in control. Perhaps I'm seeing too much, though?

Regarding the political cartoon of an old man leaning lecherously over a teenaged girl, and the cries of rape-after-rape:

I agree with @28. These guys are trying to shame women who seek abortions for having sex. They’re using voodoo medicine to try to stop any and all abortions by making them more difficult, more complicated, more embarrassing. These men don’t care about the size of government, they don’t care to learn more about the realities of pregnancy, they don’t care about facts. They want women in their subservient roles. That’s it.

For us on the rational side to try to make this argument about the girl who has been raped denies our own dignity, our own rights, our own choices. Forget the raped teenager argument. Let’s instead argue for reproductive rights because it’s about our right as uterus-havers, our rights as patients, our rights as sentient humans to make our own decisions.

What if a teenager is pregnant by rape? Does she by virtue of her innocence get to make a decision about her pregnancy that I as a sinful lover of sex don’t get to make? Would more women then cry rape to get sympathy instead of condemnation? Fuck that (use a condom, though) – abortion, like any medical decision, is only between a woman and her doctor. She may choose to share with her partner, parents, cousins, whatever, but ultimately no one else gets to force their way in to her uterus.

It doesn’t matter if the pregnancy was started by rape, or in her teenage years, or if carrying the pregnancy to term will result in her death or a stillbirth. It doesn’t matter. It is within our rights to say that we, established humans, have more rights than a bunch of cells that may one day become a human. That we have the right to have sex with whatever consenting person we want. We’re not going to apologize for making a medical decision that ultimately affects no one else.

This isn’t about a hypothetical raped teenager. It’s about the multitude of us who have the rights to decide for ourselves without shame or punishment.

Rewind.

Waist.

Sorry.

Not that I have had an abortion, but I'd guess that a transvaginal ultrasound would be a standard thing to experience after deciding to have the abortion but before the actual procedure.

@Kim: I suspect the humiliation and vulnerability were considered a "convenient" perk / feature of the procedure for the wanna-be-assailants, but I doubt that they see women as agents enough to have planned it that way.

Sorry, Dan. I agree with you that this bill is heinous and should be condemned. But calling it rape is a huge strecth. Women getting an abortion are pretty much already giving their consent to medical instruments being inserted into their vaginas. If not, then they have no idea what an abortion is, and they should probably be given more medical advice before getting the procedure.

This bill is an effort to terrorize and stigmatize women, but not rape them.

@45 nocutename
Thank you for sharing your story.

@50 kim in portland
You aren't seeing too much. The goal is both to punish her and to prevent her from coming in in the first place.

I agree that if this becomes law and women start getting raped with ultrasound equipment, they should take it to court - perhaps against the medical professionals perpetrating it, but there should also be a civil case against the state of Virginia that will get the law overturned.

Where is the outrage from the medical profession?

I think the very misguided intention of this bill is to shame women and therefore persuade them of not doing the abortion. So not only are you a baby assassin but also a woman with so little respect for yourself that you let strangers put things inside your body....
@45 you are absolutely right is not so much as a physical discomfort but an emotional one. I have to have one every year as a check up and every time sucks.

@52, @54, and earlier commenters who don't see this as rape:

Patients have the right to refuse any specific medical procedure. Going to a doctor for an abortion does not amount to consenting to any other medical procedure besides the abortion itself. If a doctor tells a woman that she must submit to a trans-vaginal ultrasound that is medically unnecessary to safely complete the abortion, just because the state insists, and she says, "No, I don't want that specific procedure, you do NOT have my permission" and the doctor does it anyway, then that doctor has a) performed a non-life-saving procedure without the patient's consent, which is illegal, and b) inserted an object into a woman's orifice without her consent, which is rape.

The abortion procedure itself may involve penetration, but that is a procedure that the patient is specifically consenting to. A medically unnecessary ultrasound is separate and should be treated as such.

@59 It is not medically unnecessary. Transvaginal ultrasounds are already done prior to just about every abortion.

I just don't know where politicians think they get off telling doctors how to do their jobs. If the legislature is going to make a rule about what procedures can/must be performed in whatever situations, they better have some medical practitioners qualified to consult with them explaining why it is medically justified/necessary.

Yes... where is the outrage? I hope your idea works Dan. I'd love to see it happen. Virginia? Where are you Virginia?

@59, I think what happens when the woman says, "No, I don't want the transvaginal ultrasound," is that the HCP then says, "In that case, I cannot legally perform an abortion." Not that the HCP performs the procedure against the patient's wishes. If the HCP did that, then it would definitely be a sex crime, a lawsuit, and a state medical board hearing.

@60, the law is not about medically necessary ones. It is not about protecting women's health or performing abortions safely. It's about the government giving itself the right to intrude on women's rights to make their own decisions about their bodies under medical guidance.

The law mandates that EVERY patient must have this type of ultrasound, whether or not it is judged medically necessary by the doctor (and it is NOT always necessary), whether or not the patient consents.

@54.. isn't rape about power and control, not sex ? when men rape during war, for instance, isn't that about terror and stigma ? at least that what i've been told. it would then seem that this is 'rape' in it's classic sense. the women don't get to choose against the procedure. they 've consented to the abortion, but not this , right ?
and to chime in with other supportive non vagina having people. this bullshit makes me want to tear the remaining hairs of my head out.

@63, you are probably right that that's what would happen in most cases. But this law now makes it imaginable that the ultrasound could be performed by force in a worst-case scenario. And that health care provider would be protected by this law, because the legislature has explicitly vetoed an amendment that would protect the patient's right to consent.

Of course, then this law would run up against sex crime laws that are already in place (too late to protect the worst-case-scenario patient, of course), which makes this bill RIDICULOUS. It goes against the role of the state, which is to protect people's rights and prevent worst-case scenarios. It's appalling that a bill which doesn't conform to those standards has been approved by a legislature and has the support of an elected executive.

@64, I know, (see my earlier comment , #41), but I've assisted in over 5000 abortions and I cannot recall a single instance when one wasn't done prior.

This law IS heinous. It is a clear attempt to humilate and control women. And other than that, what is the purpose? What will it show? That there is a pregnancy? I think that's why a woman is seeking abortion. There is NO MEDICAL NECESSITY for this diagnostic! How will having this painful procedure change the outcome? And it IS painful. As for the question of this vs D&C, since I have had both, I will say the intrvaginal ultrasound was more painful. It was worse than childbirth.
And who gives men the right over women's bodies? Yes, I realize that all MEN are created equal, but weren't we taught that was a nongender term and inclusive of women?
Bottom line is that this is an entirely unnecessary procedure that is being forced on women. I don't see men having probes inserted into their penises unnecessarily.

I propose we popularize a new slogan for the state that better reflects what it will be like to live there:

VIRGINIA IS FOR RAPISTS

What about drug-induced abortions via mifepristone /misoprostol? Couchetard and others are saying that women have a transvaginal ultrasound before abortions already -- is that true for drug-induced abortions already, because the doctor wants to know how far along the pregnancy is?

I'll say it again:

"It is not about protecting women's health or performing abortions safely. It's about the government giving itself the right to intrude on women's rights to make their own decisions about their bodies under medical guidance." And it's about mandating healthcare practices. I believe you when you say these ultrasounds are currently performed as a matter of procedure, but that does not make this bill okay. It removes the necessity of telling the patient, "I'm going to insert this into your vagina now" and waiting for her to go "mmhm," or ask, "wait, why?" It eliminates what I always thought was the standard medical practice of respecting a patient's boundaries. The bill is about control.

Read the comments these lawmakers are making about women seeking abortions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14…

'He noted he had a conversation with one GOP lawmaker regarding his amendment where the lawmaker had told him that women had already made the decision to be "vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant."'

'The Shenandoah Valley lawmaker used his floor statement to describe most abortions as a "lifestyle convenience" for women.'

These are not the words of lawmakers whose priorities include ethical and safe medical procedures.

@54 I know I'm going to have instruments and fingers inserted into my vagina when I go to my yearly gyno appointment, but if the doctor told me that he would only perform the exam if I let him insert his penis first, I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.

To the people saying this does not qualify as rape, that is incorrect. Most rape laws correctly consider coercion to be a type of rape. For example, a rapist may threaten a victim's child as a way to get the victim to "consent" to the rape. Other types of coercive rape would include requiring someone to sleep with you in order to keep her (or his) job, or to obtain necessary services (think of someone in a refugee camp forcing women to have sex with him for their rations). Forcing women to "consent" to vaginal penetration in order to obtain a medical service to which they have a constitution right would certainly fall into this category.

Virginia's new state flower, the Vagina?

And @57 That is exactly what I have been wondering. Where the fuck is the AMA? The state is requiring doctors to perform a medical procedure, whether or not the doctors deem it necessary, and they're not concerned? This whole thing is vile.

@ 59,

I have no idea why you think that I think a woman should be subjected to a transvaginal ultrasound against her will. I don't, nor have I said such. Anecdotally I don't know a single woman who has not had a transvaginal ultrasound before having either a D&C or a D&E. It is my understanding that it is standard to "see" before you go in and surgically remove something. So I guess I see a difference between we would like to "see" (date the fetus, or size up the tumor, endometrial growth...) before surgry as standard care after you have chosen to have the proceedure, as very different to you must look at this fetus before you can decide to abort. The later sounds coercive to me. The bill comes about as being the later. And immoral in my opinion. I hope this makes my point clear.

Because abortions don't require anything to be inserted in the vagina.

A few things that are useful to keep in mind:

VA § 18.2-67.2 defines penetration using an object by force and without bona fide medical necessity to be a sexual assault punishable by 5-life.

The VA General Assembly specifically rejected an amendment that would have limited the application of this law to circumstances where the probe was medically necessary, meaning that the legislation is specifically designed to use the force of law to penetrate women without a bona fide medical necessity.

Bob McDonnell, who wrote his graduate thesis at the Christian Bible Network University School of Law in 1989 about how to use the government to punish "fornicators," is arguably at the top of Romney's shortlist for VP. He has stated he plans to sign this bill into law.

Not rape. You can avoid the probe by choosing not to get an abortion.

@69. @70 and others: without going into minute detail on how an abortion is performed, yes, you need to know exactly the size of the pregnancy before you proceed. This is especially important in medication abortions, which can only be utilized in the earliest of pregnancies.

I meant @68 in my last post

To all the people saying that these wands are already used in abortions or that women who are getting abortions can expect foreign objects shoved up their vaginas, there are 2 problems with this:

1) Some abortions, if it's very early in the pregnancy, only require taking a pill so it's non-invasive.

2) A woman has to consent to every part of the process. Agreeing to one painful, possibly embarrassing, procedure does not mean she has to be open to others. And, if it is unneccessary, it will only cause more pain and possibly shame at not having control over the process.

And these are (or should be) moot points because a woman is a person and it's every person's right to consent when it comes to medical procedures!

Come on @80, go into the details, seems this thread needs educated. A lot of people seem think abortions can be performed without "foreign objects" being inserted in the vagina.

C'mon heart surgeon, I want you to do the bypass, but I do not consent to you cutting my skin or muscles. I want to pick and choose which parts of the process you do. C'mon brain surgeon, I want you to remove the tumor, but I don't want you to look first, I want you to just start cutting away.

I completely agree with @28.

It's a fine line, but this is also why I often find it disconcerting if someone cries, "closet homo" at an anti-gay bigot. Sure, several of them really are likely to be fucked up closet cases (Marcus Bachmann, most likely) but the tone used in such accusations often carry an undertone that you're insulting them as if there's something wrong with being gay. I think the cause would be better served if there was a stronger implication of pity for someone who's likely being a self-hating closet case without making it sound like you're just hurling a gay insult.

And don't get me wrong, some of my best jokes are gay insults. :)

@11 Erection pills? Real American men pull themselves up by their short-hairs.

@80, how do you respond to the assertion @78 that:

"The VA General Assembly specifically rejected an amendment that would have limited the application of this law to circumstances where the probe was medically necessary"

@39 - Sorry but the "I'm just doing my job" was fired as an excuse back in the 1900's. If Doctors are prosecuted and jailed for this I bet we'd see some changes occurring quicker than otherwise (though I admit your second point negates that charge). But not just the doctors - prosecute all who 'colluded' on the rape. This means those who passed the measure as well in my opinion.

@79. Abortion is legal. Rape is not. Making a person suffer an illegal harm to acess their legal rights is wrong. It's tyrannical and evil.

Maybe Virginia women (and the men who love them) should start paying attention and voting? This stuff doesn't just happen, it is allowed to happen.

@79 - lol. You have lost your mind. Compulsion is not permission.

@77 - You should know that. After all... You are probably the type who might sock his pregnant ex-girlfriend in the stomach in order to avoid child payments... At least that sounds just like your mentality.

@84 - What part of medically unnecessary do you not understand? If your hip replacement required by law that your brain have a knife stuck in it... You would have no problem with the law? Wait. My bad. Sounds like this may have already happened to you?

@79

And those homos can get married; they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Sit and spin, hater.

I think the big difference between ultrasounds being done currently and the way it's proposed is who is doing the viewing of the ultrasound. When the doctors and nurses look at them it's for medical necessity, when the mother is forced to view it in an attempt to keep her from having the procedure done it it's brainwashing and propagand (at a bare minmum.)

@couchetard- In the cases you've been involved in, what percentage of the patients viewed the ultrasound?

Too many to cite/quote, so let me just follow up a few points:

- I was asking in light of what couchetard said about this being fairly common already. That means it's not necessarily a new structural obstacle to providers. Couchetard, thank you so much for providing your insiders outlook.

- I completely agree that the state should leave the regulation of medical procedures up to the medical board, and out of the hands of the legislature.

- the huge question is whether or not this is an adjunct to chemical procedures (the pills). That represents a substantive invasive change and structural change. It means that a woman must go to a clinic and can't just go see her gyno and get a scrip.

- while I personally find this reprehensible, I need to understand how the additional burden is outrageous in terms of discomfort and the rest. I need to understand that so that when I start talking to voters, I'm armed with responses to their objections. A lot of people will say, "oh, meh, they do them in most cases already anyway...what's the difference if it's mandated?" A lot of us live examined, theoretically coherent lives (or try to), but a lot of people don't do nuance. We have to be able to convince those people too.

As you can see from sharpdepressedman's examples, anti-choicers will seek to fudge, equivocate and cloud things as much as possible. These folks scream about moral relativism constantly because they are so familiar with it, as they practice it daily.

Based on those who've shared their stories - and thank you SO MUCH for doing that - I imagine the choice of trans-vaginal versus abdominal is that resolution improves substantially.

The perpetrators of this want to humiliate and deter women as much as possible - they will throw up every single barrier they can which they think will get past Casey. No question. However, I suspect that the penetration aspect isn't the key aspect. They want a woman who needs this procedure to see a crying baby instead of a blurry blob of tissue.

@sharpdepressedman - you know, the State Code doesn't spell out how any of those procedures you mention are done either. They are all dictated by the standards of care maintained by the state medical board. In other words, they are between the doctor and their patient, and yes, patients do have input. Legislators do not.

I do not want to make light of minimize in any way the trauma and pain associated with the experiences those of you had with failed wanted pregnancies, but I do believe this is a emotionally painful and life changing experience for any woman who undergoes it for any reason.

It may be that every surgical abortion is preceded by a transvaginal ultrasound (although I wonder what doctors did before that technology was widely available? And couldn't a less invasive ultrasound, like the one scanned over the top of the tummy give the same pertinent information?), but there is a world--no, a universe--of difference between a doctor making a medical/surgical decision for the benefit of her patient, and the state forcing medical humiliation on a harlot who deserves to be degraded as punishment for her sin of being a sexual being.

The issue has nothing to do with standard medical protocol, and everything to do with state-sanctioned misogyny and control.

@74,

The AMA, or rather its members, leans heavily Republican due to Republican support of tort "reform" and low taxes and opposition to universal health care. I'm sure it's happy to throw patients under the bus.

@25,

A female legislator in Virginia proposed requiring an anal probe for Viagra prescriptions. Unsurprisingly, it didn't pass.

There are two types of abortions: the abortion pill and the in clinic procedure. Since the abortion pill is only effective up to 9 weeks of pregnancy you have to determine the lenght of the pregnancy by a vaginal ultrasound. Needless to say you also have to have a vaginal ultrasound before doing the medical in clinic proceedure. BUT the government has no right to sanction what a woman and her doctor decide, they are not medically trained and for the most part not even women. This is just a tool used to threaten, humiliate and control women and their choices. And furthermore, I think by passing such laws you're opening up the possibilities to scarier laws that take away even more rights of women. Personhood bill? Man slaughter for a miscarriage? Getting rid of birth control? YIKES!

@88 - If doctors think there is even the vaguest threat of being prosecuted or jailed for this, they will simply stop providing the service. You're being knee-jerk and attacking the wrong people. There are already, certainly here in VA, only a handful of clinics which still operate, in many cases hours and hours away from patients. I think you fail to grasp how the anti strategy works.

There are precious few George Tillers and out there - very few doctors, having invested years and a fortune acquiring a medical education and license - are willing to devote their entire lives to what is, despite "abortion industry" claims to the contrary, a very poorly remunerated service.

If there are no doctors to perform the service, it remains legal in name only. Accessibility is huge.