The debate over Virginia’s new abortion bill is raging. While there are good-faith debates over the scope of state authority vis-a-vis women in cases of abortion, the legislation would appear to require an invasive ultrasound procedure for women in the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy — tipping the scales in terms of the burden on women. However, conservative CNN Contributor Dana Loesch went on the air this week to make the rather astonishing claim that such an involuntary procedure is no different from voluntary sex.
I have previously criticized CNN for its use of Nancy Grace as a legal analyst and show host. However, there remains a tendency on all cable shows to play to the extremes of political and legal analysis — degrading what are sometimes legitimate disagreements over constitutional law
On this occasion, Loesch (who is associated with Andrew Breitbart) defended the law against objections to the invasive procedure:
LOESCH: That’s the big thing that progressives are trying to say, that it’s rape and so on and so forth. […] There were individuals saying, “Oh what about the Virginia rape? The rapes that, the forced rapes of women who are pregnant?” What? Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.
There is an obvious difference between consensual sexual relations and an intrusive procedure ordered by the state. The premise of such comments appears to be that, like sex, abortion is a choice. Thus, Loesch stated simply “Don’t get an abortion and you don’t have to worry about any sort of mandated ultrasound.” However, the Supreme Court has said it is part of a protected right of privacy (albeit a right balanced against certain state interests).
Here is the tape:
There is a legal difference. It is also an example of how movement Republicans can differ from libertarian Republicans. Many Republicans (particularly women) would find this comment highly offensive. For civil libertarians and libertarians, there is no greater example of government intrusion than an invasive medical procedure. One can certainly argue over whether abortion is protected as a right by the Constitution, but this argument reflects a more fundamental difference on the scope of permissible government action. While the Tea Party (with which Loesch is also associated) has often been described as libertarian, the views of some members often embrace governmental power over civil liberties.
Swarthmore mom,
Thanks for posting that video clip.
Check out the “must see” Daily Show video clip at the following link:
Jon Stewart: VA Ultrasound Bill Like A Vaginal TSA Pat-Down
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/jon_stewart_women_might_consider_vas_ultrasound_bi.php
Humans are a cowardly lot, especially men.
When Rome burned, at Nero’s fiddle party for the nobles, no one objected to the burning of humans as torches to light up the party.
And when Ellsberg went out with a disapproving letter to the NYTimes about the Vietnam war policy, together with 5 other lead employees at Rand, most of the men employees expressed violent email disapproval; whereas the women, then mostly secretaries, quietly thanked him in the corridors there.
Frankly, I am deeply sceptical to the generalization alleging male courage.
Spread the word, spread it. I sent off the manifesto to many friends.
I wish I had Obama’s soon-to-be power to send off text messages to the whole nation in times of emergency. This certainly qualifies.
All appropriate blogs etc should be linked in to the “text-machine”.
Both bills Elaine mentions are insane and misogynistic. I would be willing to bet that each of these legislators supporting these bills would if questioned deride Islamic Fundamentalists, with no sense of irony in their derision. These same legislators no doubt won their elections by decrying government interference in people’s lives, also without irony.
When faced with this insanity, many more sensible legislators either cower under the delusion that the religious Right’s 25% represents a majority view and/or the legislation will be stricken down at some “higher level”. This was how Prohibition became an amendment and also how the law that caused the Scopes Trial came about. It was the cowardice of legislators who knew better, but did not speak out, fearing political retribution. It is time for those of us who supports Women’s equality and reproductive rights to openly confront those who are supporting medieval patriarchy. This must be done with no equivocation and/or attempts at diplomatically skirting the issue.
These faux family advocates and misogynists are trying to impose upon us all their skewed view of an idyllic past as portrayed on the TV’s of the 50’s. Pigs like Newt Gingrich have said as much. It’s high time to take the gloves off when dealing with these haters and their absurd, inhuman ideas. These people are the American Taliban and must be constantly portrayed as such. The deference give to these religious extremists by the media and by those who think to tread lightly, has empowered this insanity. This is a war for the true values of this nation and we must rally the troops against this intolerant minority and show those waffling legislators there is peril in their cowardice.
The Conservative War on Women’s Sexuality
Ben Adler on February 20, 2012
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166389/conservative-war-womens-sexuality
Excerpt:
If you have been surprised to see an uptight prig such as Rick Santorum leading the Republican primary field in national polls, you shouldn’t be. Recent events have demonstrated that conservative positions on social issues are as much about repressing women and reversing the gains of the women’s movement as they are about saving the lives of the unborn.
The young people I saw at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington the week before last looked to me exactly like what you would expect from a bunch of college Republicans. They were dorks. They wore suits. Maybe some of the women’s suit skirts were short, but I was hardly scandalized.
But we learned last week that much of the conservative movement is still living in a different century—and I don’t mean the twentieth—with regard to women’s sexuality. Conservative bloggers were horrified that some young women at CPAC were dressed provocatively and engaged in loose sexual behavior with the young men in attendance.
CPAC has a well deserved reputation for being the time of year when earnest young conservatives unbutton their Oxford shirts, crack open a few Busch Lights and let loose. I see nothing wrong with that. But Erick Erickson, who runs the popular blog Red State, does. He wrote a lament that CPAC has gotten too debauched: “Young men, regardless of political persuasion or ideology, are intent on having sex, being boys, getting drunk—doing what young men in college often do. All to [sic] often there are also a few young ladies willing to shame their parents if their parents only knew.”
Erickson’s commentary is such a caricature of an avuncular misogynist that it’s amazing his post isn’t actually a parody. He almost literally says, “Boys will be boys.” But girls, on the other hand, are responsible for warding off boys’ advances. They, and they alone, are charged with protecting the conservative movement’s morality. If they don’t, they are “shaming their parents.” The notion that there is nothing immoral with enjoying oneself, as long as you aren’t spreading disease, doesn’t even cross Erickson’s mind. Nor does he consider the possibility that women and men are equally responsible for restraining their sexual urges.
Erickson also linked approvingly to Melissa Clouthier, a conservative blogger who plaintively demanded, “Have women so internalized feminist dogma that they see themselves in only two ways? Butch, men-lite wannabes or 3rd wave sluts who empower themselves by screwing every available horndog man?”
TPMMuckraker
Democrats Say Virginia Ultrasound Measure ‘Akin To Rape’
JILLIAN RAYFIELD FEBRUARY 22, 2012
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/democrats_say_virginia_ultrasound_measure_akin_to_rape.php
Excerpt;
Virginia legislators are considering two bills that would create harsh restrictions on abortions. One of the measures, Democrats say, is “akin to rape.” But there are signs that some Republicans may be having second thoughts.
A personhood bill passed out of the Virignia state House by a vote of 66-32 last week, and “provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth.” Introduced by Republican Delegate Bob Marshall (he of the health care reform is “economic rape” comment), the bill is now in the Senate Education and Health Committee, where Republicans hold a one-vote majority.
Personhood laws, aside from limiting abortions, also could impact women’s access to birth control, and place limits on procedures like in vitro fertilization. Tarina Keene, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, said in a statement that the implications could be even more far-reaching. “With the word ‘person’ appearing more than 25,000 times in the Virginia code, single-minded legislators are about to run this Commonwealth off a cliff as well as eradicating women’s health and rights.”
The second bill would require women to have an invasive procedure called a transvaginal or pelvic ultrasound before they could get an abortion, as part of “informed consent.” Additionally, the bill requires a 24-hour waiting period after the procedure, in addition to one already mandated by the state. In other words, if the bill passed there would be a waiting period, followed by the ultrasound, followed by a waiting period, before a woman could get an abortion.
Keene told TPM that this “could actually require three trips to the doctor’s office” for an abortion. “It is setting up another barrier that way.” She added that the bill is “particularly egregious in that they don’t even have an exception for rape and incest victims.”
Kathy Byron, the Republican Delegate who sponsored the bill, explained on the House floor: “This may be the most important decision that she ever makes in her life. A tough decision. And we determined over a decade ago that we were going to ensure that a woman has a right to have all the information available to her before making that decision.”
Democrats, however, have been playing up the fact that the procedure could amount to an actual criminal act. David Englin, a Democrat who opposes the bill, argued: “Object sexual penetration is a serious sex crime in Virginia. It is very difficult to look at the bill and look at the OSP statute together and think that you are not asking doctors to commit a sex crime.”
“Consent is a key element in the criminal statute, and there is no consent required in the ultrasound statute,” he said.
Charniele Herring, another Democrat, said: “What’s before us is akin to rape. The bill requires a transvaginal ultrasound and for that to happen without any appropriate medical purpose. The OSP that says if you insert something in somebody without their consent or without a bona fide medical purpose it is a criminal act. The proponents of the bill have not come up with a legitimate medical purpose.”
So far the ultrasound bill has passed out of the state Senate by a vote of 21-18 — but the House delayed a vote on it for the second time on Tuesday. Though it was initially expected to pass the Republican-controlled chamber, with Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) saying he would sign it, there is some indication that Republicans are having second thoughts.
For one thing, the polls are not on their side. A recent poll in Virginia by Christopher Newport University/Richmond Times-Dispatch found that 55% of Virginia voters polled oppose the ultrasound measure, compared with 36% who support it.
Opponents of the bill flocked to Richmond on Monday to protest, and the Associated Press reports that police estimated the crowd to be about 1000-1500 people. This came after almost 25,000 others signed a petition in opposition to the personhood amendment.
Manifesto circulating….
–”the 52% majority”
I AM A WOMAN
And NO MAN, NO GROUP OF MEN, AND NO INSTITUTION OF MEN hold dominion over me, my mind, my body, my life, my choices, my vagina, or my uterus
If you attempt to restrict my access – or my sisters’ access – to health care or contraception, WE WILL FIGHT YOU AND WE WILL WIN
Do not fool yourselves for ONE MOMENT that you have the right to speak for women, their choices, their thoughts, or their lives ANY MORE
Your attempts to own us, to harm us, to control us, to dictate policy to us, to impose your will over us – IS AT AN END
You look scared, and I can smell your fear. And you should be afraid. Cause we aren’t going to take your shit anymore.
We know how to direct 80% of the buying power and we know how to vote.
The age of old, crooked, white men is over. Consider this the death knell. Deep down, you know it. And we know it too.
Oh, and one more thing – deprive us of access and we will deprive YOU of access. If you take my meaning.
WE ARE THE MAJORITY
WE ARE THE 52%
Next time one of these sonoprobe bills comes up, I hope someone attaches an amendment requiring that men seeking prescription drugs for erectile dysfunction (Viagra, Cialis) be required to submit to a trans-anal sonogram. Seems only fair, and who knows how many prostate cancers might be detected?
I doubt these bills would get far if men had to take it in one of their delicate orifices.
Mercury Poisoning is Not a Pro-Life Value
September 16, 2011
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/mercury_poisoning_is_not_a_pro/
When political leaders claim that businesses need less regulations, they don’t usually provide specifics about which rules should be cut. Instead they seem to hope that general anti-government sentiment will provide cover when they try to eliminate common-sense policies that protect the American people from dangerous abuses by companies trying to cut corners.
This week, a coalition of evangelicals and Catholics are speaking out against this very effort, targeting new attempts to delay regulations on mercury emissions from cement plant smokestacks. The campaign includes letters from evangelical leaders and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as radio ads targeting the three Congressman most responsible for this roll back effort–Reps. Ed Whitfield (KY-1), Fred Upton (MI-6) and Joe Barton (TX-6).
Appealing to these politicians’ stated pro-life principles, these leaders specifically highlight the danger mercury poisoning poses to pregnant women and children. Directly challenging the corporate industry groups behind this effort, they lay out the moral choice before Congress:
Opponents of the mercury standards are seeking to weaken or delay the regulations. They argue that the cost of cleaning up our air (about $3-7 per month per family) is too expensive. We welcome an honest debate about how much our children’s health is worth.
*****
Religious Right: It’s Not ‘Pro-Life’ To Protect The Unborn From Mercury Poisoning
By Travis Waldron on Feb 21, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/21/429664/religious-right-its-not-pro-life-to-protect-the-unborn-from-mercury-poisoning/
The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) recently began a major advertising and outreach campaign to advocate for various environmental regulations and has targeted Republican attempts to delay regulations on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. EEN specifically appealed to one of the GOP’s most fervent ideological positions, saying, “We believe protecting the unborn from mercury poisoning is a consistent pro-life position.”
Despite those attempts, “pro-life” lawmakers like Reps. Bill Johnson (R-OH) and Ed Whitfield have blasted the proposed regulation as “far-left liberal ideology.” And this week, more than 30 advocates from the religious right, led by notables like the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, slammed EEN for its attempts to protect the environment, the unborn, and any human who could be affected by poisonous mercury emissions:
The 30-plus religious-right advocates, in a joint statement Wednesday, said that “most environmental causes promoted as pro-life involve little threat to human life itself, and no intent to kill anyone.”
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) criticized the Rev. Mitch Hescox, EEN’s president, at Wednesday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the EPA rule, which Republicans and some business groups call burdensome.
“The ‘life’ in ‘pro-life’ denotes not the quality of life, but life itself. The term denotes opposition to a procedure that intentionally results in dead babies,” said Shimkus, echoing the statement from the conservative leaders.
The religious right’s “pro-life” stance may cover invasive procedures on women, preventing access to contraception, and a host of other injustices. What it doesn’t cover, apparently, is a regulation opposed by the GOP’s big-business interests that would keep infants and children from getting poisoned by the air they breathe.
If government can mandate a forced vaginal exam, the Obamacare mandate has no problem
Blouise – I’m sorry to hear you have to go through it again, and I hope all will be found to be well. At least when it’s medically indicated, it’s less invasive than any available alternatives.
Thank you to others who’ve expressed kindness about what we’ve been through.
I am glad to hear that Virginia is reconsidering this cruel and unjustifiable law, but I’ve read/heard elsewhere that many (27?) other states have pre-abortion ultrasound requirements too, and that in many (all?) of those states, the internal probe is also required if the fetus can’t be visualized with the abdominal probe. I’m going on memory here, so I may well be incorrect (and hope I am), but if not, it seems there is a lot of work to be done in other places too.
During the floor debate on Tuesday, Del. C. Todd Gilbert announced that “in the vast majority of these cases, these [abortions] are matters of lifestyle convenience.” (He has since apologized.)
——————————————————–
Yikes!
OK, so would 1 of you good lawyers kindly draft a bill stating that all single men (non-virgins)are to be made available for forced partnership/child rearing duties (including financial support etc…..) in the event that any single woman who becomes pregnant and is without the other 50% of the equation, and who does not wish to have either an abortion or state mandated rape….and in the best interst of the child until that issue becomes 18 years of age….well , you get the drift…oh yeah…no exceptions for senators sons!
Each one of the supporters of this outrageous legislation should volunteer to have this done to the on camera the way Katie Couric did with the colonoscopy. What objection could the possibly have male or female? They won’t do it because their “no big deal attitude” comes from the belief that the won’t have to and neither will any of their rich patrons. Wealthy Catholics were always able to get abortions–some had multiple appendectomies and were never turned away from communion, dinner with a bishop or a visit with the pope. Money has always equaled piety.
I wonder if Loesch has thoroughly thought through the implications of creating a governmental property interest in vaginas. If penetration creates that interest, any non-virgin or user of feminine hygiene products could be subject to eminent domain. Loesch may find her property seized and sold to Wal-Mart or demolished to make room for a highway. Location, location, location.
(Of course, I’m kidding. Maybe. Please feel free to throw things at me if you wish, ladies.)
Elaine,
As you are aware that not all mothers are good mothers but some mothers are real muthers……
I had heard that Loesch had children. Poor kids. I wonder what she’s teaching them at home. Imagine having her for a mother?
Elaine, She has two children and she home schools them.
Subscribed