Virginia Wants to Wand Your Vagina. Rightbloggers are Outraged (That You'd Complain)
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."
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:
It'll be easier on you if you don't struggle.
"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!