Virginia Wants to Wand Your Vagina. Rightbloggers are Outraged (That You'd Complain)

tomt200.jpgThe week before last, some Catholic organizations were told they'd have to allow their insurance providers to offer (at their own cost) birth control to their employees. Rightbloggers were outraged at this violation of the Catholic orgs' civil rights.

Last week, the Virginia legislature passed a bill that would require women who want an abortion to get ultrasound -- and in some cases be wanded via their vaginas. Rightbloggers were outraged at this violation of the women's civil rights.

Ha -- just kidding about that last part, folks. Actually they thought it was a great idea.

The proposed Virginia law requires that "every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion."

It got around that in some cases, when the fetus is too small to pick up on the standard jelly-on-the-belly ultrasound, this would require the woman to undergo transvaginal ultrasound -- that is, an implement would be pushed into her vagina and against her cervix, whether she wanted it or not.

One Virginia delegate "introduced an amendment stating that a medical professional 'shall not perform an ultrasound requiring vaginal penetration without the prior written consent of the pregnant woman,'" reported the American Independent. "...The amendment failed."

Many observers found this shameful -- for example, Dahlia Lithwick, legal reporter for Slate, said, "I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law."

Rightbloggers, on the other hand, thought it was the women who wanted abortions who should be ashamed for a.) wanting abortions and b.) being ungrateful for the favor Virginia was doing them.

RedState's streiff, referring to Litwick as "some twit," at first argued that the number of women who would have to be vaginally wanded against their will was not large, anyway. He quoted in evidence a medical manual that suggested transvag was only needed to "diagnose" pregnancies before six weeks. (This isn't a universally accepted estimate and, as the purpose of the ultrasound isn't to "diagnose" the pregnancy but to humiliate the patient, transvag may be indicated for other less-tiny fetuses.)

But really, streiff continued, as the woman is there for an abortion, why shouldn't she expect whatever kind of violation the state decrees for her? "Abortion is a voluntary procedure, one far more vaginally invasive than any ultrasound," he reasoned, "and all the state is doing is requiring that anyone choosing that procedure has to first consent to a prior procedure." See, she's consenting -- just as a woman who wishes to escape a rapist with her life might consent to be raped. What's the big deal?

streiff also praised the Virginia legislature for "fast becoming the nation's leader in fighting the abortion holocaust."

transvag.jpg
It'll be easier on you if you don't struggle.
At Big Journalism, Dana Loesch explained that women who didn't want to be raped with a medical device could avoid it by not getting pregnant:

"If a woman doesn't want to be faced with an ultrasound," Loesch said, "then, according to statistics, practice responsibility: Studies prove that the overwhelming majority of women who choose abortion do so as a form of birth control. Cases of rape and incest account for around less than 1% of abortions... Furthermore, the greatest number of abortions are obtained by women who already have a child/children, so they know how anatomy and physiology works." Such carelessness is inexcusable, but at last Virginia has found a way to show these women the error of their ways, in a literally visceral manner.

Later, on the radio, Loesch said, "they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy."

"Pro-abortion set cries rape," said Don Surber. "I would venture to say a majority of women who see an ultrasound realize at that moment that they are carrying a baby," he said, presumably on his medical authority as a blogger. "Small wonder the pro-abortion set is upset."

As to the forced wanding, Surber shrugged, "Everything is rape to a true feminist." When Taylor Marsh complained of the procedure, Surber laughed, "Bob McDonnell does not want to rape Taylor Marsh with a wand or anything else." (Cuz she too ugly. Haw haw!)

Surber added, "there is of course a medical justification for this requirement," without saying what that might be. (Trust him, he's a blogger.)

At Virginia's own conservative site Bearing Drift, rightblogger JR Hoeft headlined "Democrats would prefer mothers not see or know their baby."

"Democrats have succeeded," he said. "They know that the only way they can justify their intransigence on fixing the economy that they have to point to a couple of socially conservative bogey-man 'big government' bills to sidetrack their inability to have any other economic solution than 'raise taxes.'" That makes sense; why else would anyone complain about it?

Hoeft pretended not to know about the transvaginal ultrasound at first -- "What am I missing here? Where is the invasive procedure?" -- but when commenters informed him of it, he responded, "Hell, the abortionists are going in anyway to do the extraction. But that's by 'choice.'"

Hot Air's Tina Korbe denied that the forced penetration was rape. "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," she said.

"An ultrasound isn't rape," agreed Alana Goodman at Commentary. "... The comparisons aren't just needlessly inflammatory, they also dilute the seriousness of rape." And you liberals claim to be feminists!

My Voice Nation Help
44 comments
Pudendum
Pudendum

Thanks for giving that type information,That is so useful to us and that is nice posting.Will be visit again on your website.Cunnystunts.com provide best vagina pictures vagina art fun vagina pics pudendum funny cunny vagina in Australia

Kaly
Kaly

I just want to comment that if they all think there is no problem with 'wanding' a woman by force in a very personal way; they all (men and women alike) should experience the procedure themselves before they vote.  The men can choose which personal orifice they would like the 'wanding' to invade. 

On another note:  Government: Stay out of my body; Men: When you've been raped and become pregnant from it then I will be willing to listen to your opinion.  I wouldn't say I'm pro-choice; I am, however, pro-availability of responsible choices( i.e. contraceptives).

As a government, it is irresponsible and obtuse to think that taking away the access to contraceptives and then to shame women,(who shouldn't have children for one reason or another) for using the only other option, is acceptable.

If a woman does not want to have the child for one reason or another, do you really want her to have that child?  If it is unsafe for a woman to have a child, would you really shame her for wanting to save her own life?

Carmen
Carmen

I think those men should have one of these probes jammed anally to check for brains before they're allowed to speak up in the media.

Io9k9
Io9k9

If we do not engage and fight the crazies we loose. We left the Religious Right alone after H.W. hoping their crazy would burn out and our conservative friends could keep them in check. Instead the wingers ate their captors and have devoured the Republican party. They will continue to wreck havok until they nullified by an overwhelming rational engaged majority. Please don't back away and hope they will just go away - stand up, be heard, fight religios fanatacism.

irate
irate

The 'they're going to have to go in there and extract it anyway' kind of thinking is interesting. It's my understanding that trans vag ultrasounds are currently being done to assure a medical abortion (less than six weeks) can be undertaken; however recentl studies show and the medical field is saying that if uterus size and dates of last period concur, the vast majority of early-term abortions can be done without ultrasound confirmation. 

Also interesting to note that studies of women who sought abortions and were "offered" to view ultrasound images (not mandated), reportedly found the images reassuring. None changed their minds about terminating their pregnancy. 

So the ultrasound procedure is costly, medically unnecessary and will not likely have the desired affect.  

Even if you're not comparing the contradiction between wanting government out of your business but literally inserting itself into your private parts (if you're a woman) you can't help but see the hypocrisy.

If conservatives were serious about preserving human life they'd be all about education, birth control and increased access to basic health care. They wouldn't hamper abortion at its earliest stage when it's safer for the mother, or at its late stages when usually its done because of medical defect or to safe/preserve health of the mother. I suppose caring about real people is just too socialist for them.

Roy T.
Roy T.

All your vaginas are belong to us.

stratplayer
stratplayer

To the Commonwealth of Virginia:  Keep your government wands out of our vaginas!

mommadillo
mommadillo

"All of a sudden requiring consumers to be informed is extremely unpopular on 'the pro-regulation side'"

Aaaaaand once again, a conservative proves congenitally incapable of grasping the difference between "requiring" and "allowing" something.  To a conservative, allowing abortions is the same as requiring them - the fact that legal abortion exists will somehow compel them to have one.  Similarly, the idea that consumers should be allowed to be informed (usually by compelling companies to be upfront and honest about their products and services) is mutated by the conservative thought process into consumers being required to undergo indoctrination before they can obtain certain services.

Like Roy says, the concept of "consent" is totally foreign to them.  Maybe it's because nobody ever consents to the sort of dipshit ideas they promote.

Glenn
Glenn

Ah, yes. It's a violation of their freedom (to parent) for schools to mention that gay people exist. It's a violation of their freedom when the First Lady advises about safe nutrition. Government over-reach to mandate nutrition information on food labels. It's a dangerous abuse of executive overreach for the President to tell kids to study hard and stay in school.

But requiring a woman to be undergo a medically unnecessary vaginal probe prior to receiving a legal medical procedure? Consumer protection!

susanoftexas
susanoftexas

I am positive that the Catholic Church and our state legislators are about to require the same sort of invasive procedures for men who have sex--any day now. They need to have that wand inserted in the urethra so they know where sperm comes from before they buy sperm-killing condoms.

Substance McGravitas
Substance McGravitas

William Teach:  Now, I’ll admit that perhaps the Virginia legislature didn’t quite think the law all the way through in what would need to happen to do a sonogram so early in a pregnancy.

Except that they did.  But pay no mind!

Okjuggler
Okjuggler

"Loesch said, 'they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.'"

Wingnut logic: if a woman is willing to have sex, how can she complain about being raped?

gocart mozart
gocart mozart

Has Bill O'Reillly already consented to any forced anal  probe in the future.Read page 13 at link.  RE:  Billo talking about vibrators while on the phone with plaintiff while simultaneously shoving a vibrator up his own ass and masturbating. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/f...

Tom M
Tom M

You just have to try and keep them as far away from power over your own life as possible.good luck with that here in what Republicans intend: USistan. The interesting thing about the Santorum ascendancy is how the political party most in favor of going to war with Muslim religious extremists is perfectly fine with outing themselves as religious extremists.Siding with the Roman Catholic church leadership? Welcome to 4th century moral certainty. The only remaining question isn't whether you are AC or DC, it is are you AD or BC.

commie atheist
commie atheist

"Pro-abortion set cries rape," said Don Surber. "I would venture to say a majority of women who see an ultrasound realize at that moment that they are carrying a baby," he said, presumably on his medical authority as a blogger. "Small wonder the pro-abortion set is upset."

"I'm pregnant?!?  But I thought that a peanut M&M had gotten lodged in my uterus.  Thank goodness I now know the truth.  TANF, here I come!"

Hot Air's Tina Korbe denied that the forced penetration was rape. "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," she said.

Likewise, forcible penetration of a vagina or anus with, say, a broom handle, carries no risk of negative consequences, so just lie back and enjoy it, ladies.

Waldo
Waldo

Thuggishness; that's all can think of for the legislation, and the behaviour of all the  'opinion journalists' quoted above. I won't go to their sites, the few words above are enough.Fucking loud-mouthed pseudo-tough guys.

Fred Wertham Jr.
Fred Wertham Jr.

"We've been following these people for years, and we've never seen them this crazy."

Peak Wingnut is a lie.

Guest
Guest

I like how conservatives and libertarians want to shrink the size of government until it can fit inside a woman's uterus.

Jennifer
Jennifer

Uh, what does Tim Griffin mean that no one will be forced to pay for this procedure?  Is the great state of Virginia picking up the tab? 

Trans-vaginal ultrasounds cost an average of $200 per procedure, and since there's no medical reason to do an ultrasound prior to an abortion, good luck with getting an insurer to pick up the cost of this non-medically-necessary procedure.  Homey Humana don't play that shit.

This is why I wrote to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and suggested that they need to adopt an ACA rule that clearly spells out that non-necessary medical procedures mandated by state laws cannot be billed to patients, insurers, or Medicaid/Medicare.  One of the stated goals of ACA is to help control costs, and one of the ways you do that is to not perform unnecessary medical procedures.  We'd see a lot less of this stuff if the good ol' boys in the Virginia legistlature had to go explain to their constituents that they were raising taxes to underwrite the cost of their latest slut-shaming regulations.  Plus, if the state has to pick up the cost, then you've got a situation where the state more or less is enabling abortions by funding the legal prerequisite for getting one.

Kaly
Kaly

Not to mention the fact that there is the non-surgical abortion. (2 pills)

No invasion at all. Only available before 6 weeks.

Al Swearengen
Al Swearengen

Don't forget gay marriage.  If it's available, they'll just have to have one...because.

Glenn
Glenn

 Loesch must have a very unpleasant sex life.

zuzu
zuzu

Despite the fact that Santorum is the bishops' favorite, he does a piss-poor job of following actual Catholic teachings on anything but abortion and contraception:  http://www.juancole.com/2012/0...

Kaly
Kaly

Um, the last time I checked, Forced(<-keyword) penetration is at the top of the list of Sexual Assault/Rape.

Glenn
Glenn

"I would venture to say a majority of women to see an ultrasound realize at that moment that they are carrying a baby."Um, I would venture to say that the majority of women who go to the clinic seeking an abortion realize that they are carrying a baby.

The Curiosity
The Curiosity

Those aren't real libertarians. They just use that name because it sounds cool. 

Synykyl
Synykyl

... there's no medical reason to do an ultrasound prior to an abortion ...

Much as they would like to undo Roe v. Wade, even the conservative assholes on the supreme court won't find this ultrasound requirement constitutional.

Davis
Davis

I hope your points will reach a wider audience.  Get Dr. Maddow on the line.

coozledad
coozledad

Have you considered running for public office? Let us know. I'll mail you a check.

Buffalo Rude
Buffalo Rude

"Uh, what does Tim Griffin mean that no one will be forced to pay for this procedure?  Is the great state of Virginia picking up the tab?"

TANSTAAFL, except IOKIYAR and slut shaming is involved.

mommadillo
mommadillo

Not nearly as unpleasant as her partner's.

Fred Wertham Jr.
Fred Wertham Jr.

Peak Wingnut is a theory that continuously falsifies itself.

adellutri
adellutri

 By that standard, there are no "real libertarians". I think it's better to consider the actual "libertarians". They do not give two shits about women's rights.

commie atheist
commie atheist

No True Libertarian would support an invasive, coercive, non-medically necessary rape-like procedure.  Except for all the ones that do (I'm looking at you, Tyler Cowen, you asshole).

Matt Thompson
Matt Thompson

Seriously? So when are the real pro-choice libertarians going to step up and smack around the douchebags ruining their brand by allowing it to be completely tied up with atavistic dingbats who aren't fond of they themselves openly doing the Jesus thing (though they do like it for keeping the rabble in line) or they'd cut the shit and call themselves Republicans? Anytime soon, 'cause for as long as I've been aware of them, libertarians seem like they could give two shits about a woman's right to chose. The ones that do - and I'm sure there's a blind squirrel in amongst 'em - they're pretty damn quiet about it.

Jennifer
Jennifer

Have you seen her partner?

He's one of the guys in the powdered wigs doing the white dork "rap" at CPAC.  You know, the one with the funny line about "knickers" spoken in the presence of a dark-skinned person.

adellutri
adellutri

probably just because you HAVE to say that to have a shot at the GOP nom

Not so. Go to Ron Paul's 2012 campaign website & click on the "issues" link. Note that the very first issue is titled "A PRO-LIFE CHAMPION". It's arranged like that for a reason: Ron Paul is dead serious about being against abortion (and, actually, contraception).

adellutri
adellutri

probably just because you HAVE to say that to have a shot at the GOP nom

Wrong. When Ron Paul says he's anti-choice, he's serious as a heart attack. If you go to his campaign website and choose the "issues" link, you'll note that his issue #1 is "A PRO-LIFE CHAMPION": http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the...

zuzu
zuzu

Well, that, and he's a godbag.

Okjuggler
Okjuggler

Ron Paul says he's anti-choice; probably just because you HAVE to say that to have a shot at the GOP nom.

Barry_D
Barry_D

 "We're not quiet about it. Our voices just don't make it to the mainstream press. Polling shows that - if you leave the word "libertarian" out of it & just go by viewpoint - 17% of the electorate is libertarian. And yet, you'd be hard-pressed to name an actual libertarian (Ron Paul isn't actually libertarian; he refers to himself as a "paleo-conservative"). Here's what the Libertarian party platform says:"

And last I heard, about 60% of the electorate is economically farther left than the Obama administration - going by polling.

Substance McGravitas
Substance McGravitas

And their employer, who may have a business interest in investigating the vaginas of the staff.

dangfitz
dangfitz

We're not quiet about it. Our voices just don't make it to the mainstream press. Polling shows that - if you leave the word "libertarian" out of it & just go by viewpoint - 17% of the electorate is libertarian. And yet, you'd be hard-pressed to name an actual libertarian (Ron Paul isn't actually libertarian; he refers to himself as a "paleo-conservative"). Here's what the Libertarian party platform says:

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration".

I was the Libertarian candidate for US Senate in Oregon in 2002 (unanimous nomination, so I'm not an outlier); I believe that no government has any interest, power, right, or authority that extends into a woman's vagina unless and until invited (I'm thinking rape investigation - I can't think of any other circumstance), and permission now doesn't imply permission at any other time. Reproduction is outside the purview of government. It should be completely left up to the individual.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...