Sort of serious question: how is a required trans-vaginal ultrasound not coerced sexual assault? I mean I guess you have to "consent" to it, but it sounds an awful lot like rape to me. In order to have this [legal, for now, and perhaps even medically necessary] medical procedure you must permit me to put something in your vagina even though you really don't want me to and it is not medically necessary in any way.
Not totally disgusted yet? Well, step on up folks:
"During the ultrasound bill debate, Del. David Englin (D-Alexandria) offered an amendment requiring a woman's consent to the trans-vaginal ultrasound procedure, which was rejected by the Republican-controlled House.
Democrats have criticized Gilbert's floor statement, and Englin said that the statement is in line with previous Republican comments on the issue. 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".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
If that doesn't show the absolute disgust and hatred of women specifically in all this, I don't know what does.
Should women forced to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound be allowed to make local VA Assembly members undergo a colonoscopy?
Jimbo
2012/02/16 12:24:05
|
|
|||||
|
13 votes
|
|
50% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
19% | |||
|
8 votes
|
|
31% | |||
The VA Assembly passed a bill that makes women undergo a medically unnecessary vaginally invasive procedure without their permission. It seems only fair they should get the right to order the same for the people that ordered their procedure.
RICHMOND — Bills that define life as beginning at conception and that
require pregnant women to submit to an ultrasound before an abortion
passed the House of Delegates on Tuesday, punctuating the first half of a
legislative session that has been marked by heated debates over social
issues.
The debate was more extensive and more heated in the
Republican-dominated House, which passed "personhood" legislation (HB 1)
championed by Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William County. The bill
states that unborn children "at every stage of development" have the
same rights as other individuals except where the U.S. Constitution,
U.S. Supreme Court interpretations or state laws say otherwise. The bill
passed by a vote of 66-32.
RICHMOND — Bills that define life as beginning at conception and that
require pregnant women to submit to an ultrasound before an abortion
passed the House of Delegates on Tuesday, punctuating the first half of a
legislative session that has been marked by heated debates over social
issues.
The debate was more extensive and more heated in the
Republican-dominated House, which passed "personhood" legislation (HB 1)
championed by Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William County. The bill
states that unborn children "at every stage of development" have the
same rights as other individuals except where the U.S. Constitution,
U.S. Supreme Court interpretations or state laws say otherwise. The bill
passed by a vote of 66-32.
For the second day in a row, Democratic opponents argued that the
bill amounts to a government mandate on physicians and patients,
requiring women to submit to an invasive procedure that may be medically
unnecessary.
"This is the first time, if we pass this bill, that
we will be dictating a medical procedure to a physician," said Del.
Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria. "You're saying that it's OK for the
government to force its way into the relationship between doctor and
patient."
Top Opinion
-
melly~thwarting Satan since... 2012/02/16 13:05:33
Can you imagine the probe in the hands of a holier than thou, self righteous technician who is angry that a woman would DARE to make decisions about her own body? It would literally be rape and torture with a foreign object. These people are of a medieval mentality.
Why aren't men wearing condoms? If a man doesn't want to father a child, why doesn't HE get a vasectomy? It takes two to Tango and last I heard the men are the ones (or should I say boys) who dont like birth control yet they have the highest sex drive.
Remember, women aren't the ones thinking with their d*cks!
And as a tax payer, you're gonna pay for that unwanted child's food, healthcare, diapers, school -and a myriad of other things after it's born, possibly the mothers warfare when the father is stuck on his crack pipe....or still in high school!
Wear a f*cking condom instead of blaming a woman! How about that!
A$$
You don't know me well enough to call me a name you can't substantiate. You don't know my political views other than make assumptions based on words you don't like. I have as much to do with the Virginia legislature as you do - why did you not tell them you thought their idea was stupid?
If I could get pregnant and knew no help was coming I could rely on - I sure as hell would not get myself that way. One part of a woman's right to decisions regarding her body is accepting responsibility for her actions. I don't hold with dictating this goverment sponsored involuntary rape; but on the other hand - what part of self victimization leaves a woman vulnerable to it? So, santimonius one; go in peace knowing that what I'm saying is not entirely untrue.
How very 1300th century of you. What you wrote is all I needed to get your message and your belief.
You ARE a chauvinistic male by the phrase you used again about ONLY taking the point of the woman's responsibility and still not mentioning the male.
On top of that, I'm guessing you don't live in a poverty society where women don't have enough money OR education to use their ignorance to make such decisions along with their ignorant men. MORE education and access to contraception needs to be available instead of playing the blame game as to where your tax dollars are going!
You don't understand the concept of sarcasm and can't laugh. While I on the other hand have great female friends and read about female issues, like Charlotte Beers;' 'I'd Rather Be in Charge'. I just don't subscribe to dunderhead self generated emergencies like 'needing an abortion'. If a woman NEEDS an abortion, she's made a few ill conceived choices (no pun intended). It certainly is not up to me to decide what she should do about it. None of my friends NEEDED and abortion. They got pissed when they found out they were pregnant ocassionally, then we our mutual friends thru a baby shower for her, while we added one more line to the Christmas list.
Pregnacies happen, slap on your wonder bra and deal with it. Look, this legislation is all about creating a walk of shame for women. But if women know that, why let themselves in for it? But I get what this legisation is all about. I'll leave some tighes at the altar of you....
I never mentioned abortions. Where did that come from?
I get sarcasm...did you write any?
Lastly, you like to hear yourself talk don't you? I would doubt you know women that well just for that reason alone. A person probably couldn't get in two words edgewise.
A colonoscopy is all crap!
My comment was a flippant tongue in cheek response to a situation which is a serious invasion of an individuals rights.
What can one expect from the GOP who scream about less government when out of power and use government like the Gestapo when they have the numbers!
Next they will be forcibily mining people's teeth for gold!
There seems to be extreme outrage with such people that either government, or private insurers, or taxpayers, or others who are insured (this argument takes many forms) are being 'forced to pay' for others whom, though the latter might indeed also pay health care premiums, are somehow 'non-payers' demanding something 'for free'. A sampling of what others have said to me here regarding contraceptives, for illustration:
“There's no 'right' to have it [contraceptives] paid for by everyone else.”
“To mandate a corporation to give something [contraceptives] away falls under an unlawful seizure of property. It is there property and their choice what to do with it.”
“Why do we need Insurance and goverment paying for peoples contraceptives?”
“To hell with the federal goverment and their over spending. The feds DO NOT have the power to mandate private companies to give thing...
There seems to be extreme outrage with such people that either government, or private insurers, or taxpayers, or others who are insured (this argument takes many forms) are being 'forced to pay' for others whom, though the latter might indeed also pay health care premiums, are somehow 'non-payers' demanding something 'for free'. A sampling of what others have said to me here regarding contraceptives, for illustration:
This is just my observation. I'm not going to argue with any cons here about it because I've done so already and it has proved to be a fruitless endeavor.
I was merely highlighting the hypocrisy of conservatives, who argue, for instance, that 'others' should 'not be forced to provide or pay for coverage' when it comes to women's contraception, yet are perfectly fine with others paying for needless ultrasounds in an attempt to shame women when their pet issue of abortion arises.
A colonoscopy for all who voted for this barbaric act- only no anesthetic be used.
I thought the primary concern of both citizens and pols this season was jobs, jobs, jobs. So, where is the legislation to stimulate job growth? All I see coming from cons are social issues. Issues purposefully meant to divide the public with distraction from the real issues cons have no viable solutions for.
WHERE ARE THE JOBS BILLS, CONS? Cons is a perfect moniker for you all. Thats all you are, thats all you do, con the public.