You Say Virginia, I Say Vagina

Okay…. so who’s in the mood to get pissed off?  Read on!

RICHMOND, Va. — A bill requiring a woman to get an ultrasound before having an abortion is poised to pass Virginia’s legislature this week, placing it on track to be signed into law by Gov. Bob McDonnell.

In its current form, Virginia’s bill requires that the ultrasound find and monitor the fetal heartbeat and provide an image of the shape of the fetus. As in other states with ultrasound laws, this will often require a probe to be inserted into the vagina.

“This is a forced bodily intrusion, and it could be going against a doctor’s better judgment,” said Tarina Keene, executive director of Naral Pro-Choice Virginia. “If a woman says she doesn’t want to have an ultrasound, she shouldn’t have to have one.”

Delegate Bob Marshall, a Republican who plans to vote for the bill, contends that the argument does not ring true because the abortion itself is far more invasive.   “The intrusion is already taking place,” he said. — NYTimes

Got that?  Insofar as the patient has already determined she wants the pregnancy aborted, subjecting her to another intrusive procedure is okay, too.  In fact, why not stuff a probe inside her and make a documentary?   Or a cartoon?  YouTube at 11:00.

Keep in mind, these are the same “conservatives” whose concern for individual rights at the hands of an activist government turns them against national medical insurance.    Not to mention  regulating possession of automatic weapons.  How about forcing kids to pray in schools?    Etc.

This is the sort of thinking behind the Occupy Vagina  movement.  I thought I made that up, but it turns out to be genuine!

This entry was posted in NIMBY. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to You Say Virginia, I Say Vagina

  1. Ya' Gotta' Guessit says:

    “The abortion itself is far more invasive”.
    Well fuck you, delegate Marshall.

    If the purpose of a state-required ultrasound is to present an almost-certainly anxious & upset woman with “baby’s first photo” in a last-ditch effort to change her mind, then fuck the state of Virginia, too.

    Being a male mammal, I can only think that most of the females who have chosen abortion have already thought the thing through, and aren’t in need of the state’s arm-twisting – especially under these circumstances.

    But see what can happen when the government chooses what’s best for everyone’s health?

    • 'Nonymous says:

      The sole purpose of this legislation is to protect unborn children from what is little more than a loophole in criminal law that allows their murder. It’s not a case of “government choosing what’s best for everyone’s health,” it’s a legitimate exercise of government authority to protect vulnerable citizens from harm, in fact, mortal danger.

      • Dawgbowl says:

        Wrong again, ‘Nonymous. A fetus is neither a person nor a citizen. This is government intrusion at its very basic worst.

        But neither is it “government choosing what’s best for everyone’s health.” It’s government insinuating itself into a process where only a doctor and a patient belong, which is not what socialized medicine advocates, let alone limited Obamacare..

  2. Bambi Buzz says:

    Quiet down boys. I’ve had one of those exams and I find them quite enjoyable as long a the probe vibrates. Often I ask for several at the same visit as long as I’m allowed to have a cigarette break.

  3. TM Pube says:

    you do realize that in a bad economy you’re advocating taking away the jobs of the highly trained vaginal plunger techs. Tell me are you a Socialist Kenyan Moslem too.

  4. Barbara Ganousch says:

    I just conducted a but of research and learned there were 1792 rapes reported in Virginia last year, which ranks 16th in the nation. Certainly some of these rapes resulted in pregnancy. So I wonder — does this law make an exception for rape victims, or do they have to endure yet another unwanted invasive procedure as further punishment?

  5. Camiel Toe says:

    Who will join me for Occupy Delegate Bob Marhsall’s asshole? Bring thorny branches and hot sauce.

  6. A law allowing a man to kill his worst enemy provided that he first look at a picture of him, would not be regarded as a draconian imposition on the aspiring murderer; but, really, the least that could be asked of him: that he acknowledge his victim’s humanity before proceeding to take his life.

    • Camiel Toe says:

      @ManuelA.Tallechia: What a splendid idea for a new law. But why would a man need a picture of his worst enemy? Surely if that’s his relationship, he knows what his enemy looks like.

      What this has to do with the choice and control a woman has with regard to her own body and family is less clear to me. I can promise you from personal experience, as well as close personal knowledge of others and theirs, that the decision to abort a fetus is quite personal, steeped in one’s own mortality, and wrenching enough without the government stepping in Evidently even the Virginians who advanced this crackpot agenda agree — they reversed themselves, at least for this round.

    • Dr. Robert Bentley, M.D. says:

      Sir: Did anyone tell you that your are absolutely nuckin futz?

      Your dogma resembles that of the Catholic Church. Welcome to the 15th century.

  7. I suppose that it could be required that the would-be assasin first obtain an x-ray of his prospective victim, but I do not know that seeing his innards would be conducive to a greater appreciation of his humanity than would seeing his picture. In any case, it would only be a formality that allows him to carry out his homicidal intent with immunity. Very little to ask and no imposition on him.

    • Dawgbowl says:

      @Manuel: So in the case of abortion, who, in your twisted view, is the assassin — the woman seeking control over her own reproduction, or the physician performing the procedure? And if either of these parties are considered assassins, what do we call the governing body that mandates the medically unnecessary and intrusive ultrasound, lecture, and slide show for the woman? Or the same legislators who would prohibit the procedure under any circumstances, including pregnancy caused by incestuous rape?

  8. To answer your question: Abortion is a death sentence sanctioned by the State for which there is no appeal; the abortionist is the licensed executioner; the mother is the victim; and the innocent child is the casualty.

    Abortion is recoursed to not because a woman is “seeking control over her own reproduction,” but because she, at some point, lost control over her reproduction. It is not an affirmation of autonomy, but, rather, an evasion of responsibility, which does not and can never “empower” anyone.

    Since 99.99999999% of abortions do not involve incest or rape, are you suggesting that the failure to use contraception or contraceptive failure are less compelling reasons for having an abortion? We are agreed as far as that goes. But I do not stop there: I believe that there is no order of humanity that is basely born, and no child that deserves to be put to death because of the actions of its parents. Yes, not even a child that was conceived through rape or incest.

    • Eye Claudius says:

      Puto volunt ad reconsiderare. Quod Plato in “Theoria Formarum” is autem qui dicerent cur foetum non convenit?

      You Catholics write like that. Welcome to the 15th Century

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s