« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Yes Virginia, There Is a Baby in There

lies and damned lies in Virginia's fight to protect human life

The Virginia state legislature is fast becoming the nation’s leader in fighting the abortion holocaust. Last summer abortion clinics were required to meet standards appropriate to a medical facility rather than those resembling a chicken factory. A personhood bill is moving forward which will recognize what anyone who passed high school biology already knows, that a fetus is a separate and distinct human being. But the bill that has the left in a tizzy is one that strikes directly at the market for the abortionists’ sales pitch: women who have just discovered they are pregnant. As a result the Virginia GOP is being treated just by the abortion lobby the same way a rehab clinic operator would be treated by drug pushers.

The bill is pretty straight forward.

Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, [emphasis mine] contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable.

Before a woman can receive an abortion in Virginia she must have a sonogram. The sonogram must be given by an MD, not one of the hirsute nurses that one usually finds in abortion clinics. She must be given the opportunity to view a print of the sonogram and she must be given the opportunity to hear the baby’s heartbeat. The woman doesn’t have to look at the picture if she chooses not to. The woman doesn’t have to listen to the heartbeat if she chooses not to.

From this the left is claiming that this requires a transvaginal ultrasound which, according to some twit writing at Slate is just like rape. She draws her farfetched conclusion thusly:

Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.

So does Virginia’s law require some foreign object to be “inserted into the vagina, and then moved around”? The answer is obviously no. The law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound must be used, rather it clearly states that the sonogram “shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community.” This, obviously, is going to be a function of whatever device Dr. Mengele has at his disposal in the abortion facility.

Abdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds are both effective at early stages of pregnancy. This fact is acknowledged in this “continuing medical education” module produced by the National Abortion Foundation (tag line: “A Provider’s Guide to Medical Abortion”):

Transabdominal ultrasound cannot reliably diagnose pregnancies that are < 6 weeks’ gestation. Transvaginal ultrasound, by contrast, can detect pregnancies earlier, at approximately 4 ½ to 5 weeks’ gestation. Prompt diagnosis made possible by TVU can, therefore, result in earlier treatment.

So, yes, transvaginal is more reliable for detecting pregnancies for a period of about seven days. Please note the Orwellian use of the word “treatment” for “killing of the baby.” How does this require a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound? Short answer: it doesn’t.

Is this just like rape? That’s even more ridiculous. Abortion is a voluntary procedure, one far more vaginally invasive than any ultrasound, and all the state is doing is requiring that anyone choosing that procedure has to first consent to a prior procedure. This is not how rapists, in general, operate. It’s crackpottery on the level of saying that it’s assault to require you to consent to a chest incision before you can have open heart surgery. Doctors perform invasive diagnostic tests before more serious procedures every day without being called rapists by Luddite lawyers.

What Dahlia Lithwick and her sycophants are doing is what leftists do when they are losing a debate. They tell the Big Lie.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    …rip a fetus out one piece at a time, but that isn’t akin to rape.

    • http://blog.khelek.us Brian Johnson

      The abortion isn’t like “rape-rape” according to Whoopi and the disgusting left. Constrary to something that’s designed to help preserve the life of the unborn.

      How can they stand to live in such a morally bankrupt state of mind? It disgusts me.

  • vandalii

    Isn’t that what caused the pregnancy in the first place? ;-) And isn’t *that* foreign object the source of the abortion industry’s business?

    Seems that if foreign objects in the vagina were really a source of concern for the left, PP, NARAL, feminists, etc. would be hot on the abstinence wagon (and then out of funds). Those pesky “:foreign objects” cause babies.

    Since many abortions include a D&C, either as the abortion method or to clear out any remaining placenta, etc. in other methods, what makes *that* destructive invasion acceptable and a benign transvaginal ultrasound (other than the mother-to-be may not want to face the fact murder is about to ensue) not?

    As usual, we find logic is not an attribute greatly understood or valued by the left.

    Sheesh,

    vandalii

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      She has a constituency to defend even when she doesn’t have a point to defend.

    • littlehouse18

      the woman can place the transmitter herself, although the sonographer will have to take over after that. At that point it is barely felt.

      I can almost guarantee that at some point in her life a woman will have a TVU for some medical reason. Is it an invasion then? No.

  • oldlady

    now too. Thank you Governor Perry!

    • honolulu45

      Yes, they do and my grandson was saved by a sonogram. He is now 3 yrs. old. She went in to have an abortion and came out pregnant all because she heard his heart beat.

  • znjs

    Yes to protecting the rights of the unborn. No to politicians to telling doctors what procedures to perform.

    • streiff

      because there are laws requiring doctors to perform mammograms they don’t want to perform.

      • znjs

        and to be clear that includes the unborn, politicians have no business telling people what procedures to have performed on them. That’s it. That’s all I’m saying.

        • streiff

          is that you don’t like abortion restrictions not that you object to the state mandating certain procedures be done.

          And if you don’t think killing = harm you really shouldn’t be posting here because your impending pro-abort bullcrap is going to get you banned.

          • znjs

            I said politicians DO have the responsibility if harm is being done, and yes I include killing an unborn child as harm.

            If harm is not being done (and again, to be clear, killing the unborn is harming them), then politicians should not be involved in what should be between a patient and doctor.

          • streiff

            you are against the laws requiring doctors to give mammograms even if they don’t think they are necessary?

          • znjs

            Government shouldn’t tell doctors or patients what to do if no one is being harmed.

          • littlehouse18

            There is a baby about to be killed.

          • znjs

            I said yes to the bill protecting the unborn. I am saying the opposite of what you are claiming I’m saying – what I’m saying is that abortion should be illegal because harm is being done in the case of abortion. That is my position. The bill I am opposed to is the one mandating an ultrasound because there is no reason for politicians to tell people what procedures to have. But being opposed to that is not the same, at all, of saying that I think abortion should be legal because no harm is being done.

            Again, let me be perfectly clear about this – ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! THAT IS MY POSITION!

          • streiff

            without an ultrasound? I the early stages how would anyone know she is pregnant? In the later they procedure is performed during ultrasound– see Silent Scream for video.

          • znjs

            If there’s a medical reason for her to get an ultrasound, that is between her and her doctor. Politicians shouldn’t mandate procedures that are unneeded for political purposes. I can’t understand how anyone who is conservative can’t agree with that basic premise.

          • streiff

            have understanding conservative positions. To the point, I’m bored with this low level trolling you’re doing and I’d suggest you move on to another site and bother them.

          • littlehouse18

            If you don’t want to kill your baby, you don’t have to have this early ultrasound.

          • Liberal Lion

            Why not just have an open and honest discussion with someone with a different view? As it says below where one writes their comment before posting, “Be respectufl, or be banned.” Not, “Only post here if you agree with everything we say, or be banned.”

          • streiff

            this is a conservative site and a pro-life site. We aren’t here to discuss “different views.” If you don’t like it, tough.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        bravo

        • Adjoran

          Well played, sir.

  • From ME to You

    Super!!!

  • Tim Griffin@griffinelection

    This bill simply requires a woman receive informed consent before she have an abortion. For the left to get angry about this shows how ant-life their bias really goes!

    http://www.redstate.com/griffinelection/2012/02/17/virginia%e2%80%99s-ultrasound-bill-a-major-step-forward-for-women-and-unborn-children/

    • Liberal Lion

      How much information do you think is appropriate? A pamphlet on the subject of what will happen when the abortion is performed? A video of an abortion being performed? I’m actually curious as to what you think will be an acceptable level of information. Thank you.

      • littlehouse18

        ..

        • Liberal Lion

          I’m looking for other people’s thoughts on this.

          • jdw4america

            I think you will find that the view on this side of the aisle is complete disclosure as to what the procedure entails, and what ALL the risks are, as befitting the most common surgical procedure in the country.

            After all, I was recently doubled over, seeing stars from pain in an emergency room from a gallbladder attack, and pretty much willing to let them saw off my legs if necessary, but the doctor wouldn’t admit me until he had told me what the procedure involved, what alternatives I had, what the risks were and what he would be doing in the worst case scenario. That’s the kind of disclosure I think is necessary – the medical kind.

            So that would mean: the murderer/abortionist would begin with a statement to the effect that the fetus is a separate, distinct human being, and the treatment will kill him or her, (not “it.”) As in, “This procedure will cause the death of the human baby currently growing inside of you.” Next disclosure is that a lamina will be placed into the cervix and used to force it open so that the technician – since many states do not require doctors, so as not to deny access – can insert a blade and hack the unborn person into little pieces. Or, in some cases, inject enough saline into the unborn person to literally burn him to death with salt.

            Possible risks? Well let’s see… the lamina may permanently damage the cervix, preventing the woman from having children in the future, should she find herself at some time desiring some. The procedure might perforate her uterus, lead to peritonitis, and kill her. It might perforate her bowel and kill her. It might perforate her bowel and require her to use an ostomy bag for the rest of her life. It might nick one of her nerves and paralyze her. She might develop severe depression. She might develop breast cancer. She might not be able to bond with any children she allows to live past pregnancy because of guilt. She might develop post-traumatic disorder. She might become suicidal. She might be psychologically consumed by this single act and turn to drugs or cutting or other self-destructive behaviors. The tech might not remove all of the baby’s body, which will decompose inside her, lead to infection, and possibly sterilize or kill her. The tech might not remove all of the placenta, which will decompose inside her, lead to infection, and possibly sterilize or kill her. Disclose also that there is no required medical follow-up in the abortion mill, so she will have to monitor her own progress to ensure she doesn’t hemorrhage and bleed to death. (If she’s an underage age child, she wouldn’t want her parents to find out, after all. Course, if the little girl is being peddled by a pimp, be sure to let him know his property needs monitoring.) There are more, but space is limited, and I’m sure you get the gist.

            And then, yes, I do believe I would have her watch a film of an actual abortion. Let her watch a real, defenseless baby be butchered before her very eyes. Let her watch the baby try to evade the scalpel, but have nowhere to go. Let her watch him open his mouth in a “silent scream.” Then have the tech tell her – this is what will happen to the unborn person growing inside you during the abortion because HE (not “it”) can feel pain.

            I’m sure that at that point the most sexist, violent, barbaric and demeaning “procedure” in the world would no longer be a leftist talking point about a woman’s reproductive rights. That’s the kind of disclosure we’d like, full disclosure.

          • falconrap

            the conversation doesn’t it. If only more people actually understood what goes on and why the abortion industry actually exists, abortions would likely plummet.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            I’ve ever read on this issue. Why should even the simplest of other medical procedures require at minimum a full discussion of the risks, yet abortion doesn’t. There is no satisfactory answer to this.

            Thank you, jdw4america.

          • http://www.tinfoilhelicopter.com lunaticrex

            …description of abortion and its potential consequences I think I have ever read. Thank you for posting this.

            I confess to having spent most of my life agnostic about abortion. It didn’t appear to affect to me personally, and in any event, I would never have chosen to abort a child. As a male, I will forever remain uncertain what I would or could have done had my first wife wanted to abort either one of our two children. Fortunately, she is a Christian and it never would have occurred to her to have one. For the record, we were married well after abortion had been legislated from the highest bench.

            In matters social, I have some libertarian views. I notice, however, these are diminishing as I age (mature?). With abortion, in the last few years I have come down against the ‘abortion-on-demand’ provided by the USSC in Roe v Wade. I think you, JDW, have just convinced me that I fully disagree with abortion, no matter what caused the pregnancy. I will maintain the belief, however, that in cases where the mother might be endangered, her physician (and possibly her mate, assuming they are long-term, and that he is male – I ain’t THAT libertarian) should determine what course to take.

            And thanks for the piece, Streiff. Good stuff. You too, Virginia.

          • http://www.tinfoilhelicopter.com lunaticrex

            If I have libeled any libertarian (big or little “L”), I apologize. I had intended to write more, but the comment seemed to be getting dairy length. If libertarians are anti-abortion in general, I should not have implied they aren’t.

            I proofread. I should train myself to ‘proof-think.’

          • godschosen

            This comment should be in bold print, bold enough to fill an entire page in The New York Times!!!!!!!!!

      • streiff

        Conservatives in the Mist.

        Well hope you have fun wherever you decide to post. You have plenty of time to find a home.

      • Tim Griffin@griffinelection

        As an strong pro-lifer, I want as much information given to the mother as possible.

        Because science tells us that the unborn child is undoubtedly alive (it is not dead or in a state b/t life and death, it is undoubtedly alive) and undoubtedly human (genetically speaking, the baby can not grow into a tree or animal, but is in every way human), a higher degree of information is probably necessary.

        If people are going to demand the right to abortion, then we also need to start weighing the rights of the child. Understanding the procedure and ramifications of abortion on women is a start. Understanding, the life being terminated is the other part. If we know the gender, the woman should know it. If the baby is experiencing brain waives and kicking, the mother should know it.

        To me, if you are going to terminate a life, you should at least realize what you are doing because you can’t take it back.

        Liberal Lion, I appreciate you coming onto this site to have an open and honest discussion. I hope you’ll continue to visit.

        P.S., jdw4america’s comments were priceless. That truly is the danger women are facing.

  • bassethound

    Our daughter just turned 18. I took her to an oral surgeon to see if we should have her wisdom teeth taken out over spring break.

    The technician took a panoramic x-ray. Then he brought my daughter and me in for the consultation. The x-ray was displayed. He HAD to show it to us. He then proceeded to list complications that could develop from the surgery, including facial nerve damage and even death. He kept insisting that he HAD to inform us of the complications that could develop, even if the possibility of a particular complication occurring was remote.

    So using the “logic” of the twit from Slate, was the panoramic x-ray like oral sex?

    Was the consultation after the x-ray an invasion of our privacy?

  • aesthete

    and will undoubtedly try to cover for their sociopathic lack of concern for human life by mumbling something about personal opposition to abortion, or somesuch fig leaf.

  • Adjoran

    The state legislatures, with a healthy, no holds barred debate from both sides. It is clearly not a Constitutional issue.

    I’m pro-life, 100% (except for “life of the mother,” which was always legal anyway – although “risk” does equal “threat,” so it is extremely rare that abortion would truly be necessary to save the mother’s life). But California, New York, and a few other states had already legalized abortion, which had become one of the ’60s counterculture and feminist causes, before Roe v Wade made it a federal matter. And I accept that, although I strongly disagree with the outcome in those states.

    Today, many more states would legalize it, perhaps most. I would argue strongly against such laws in each, and expend any available revenue to help prevent them, but that is the law of man and our system never promised perfect outcomes.

    I see this as a trial run for the happy day Roe v Wade is overturned. We must be able to win such little victories as the sonogram test if we are ever to hope to win the greater battle when it comes.

  • jdaman

    Democrats will start popping out of the woodwork in VA and in droves to protest this “horrible law” that infringes on the “rights of the mother” AKA “the woman who wants to murder an unborn child”.
    But I don’t care how much the Left whines, this law is a beautiful step towards banning murdering the unborn children of America.

  • lineholder

    As a Conservative, generally speaking, I’d just as soon government stay out of our way and allow us as much freedom as possible. But when it comes to the abortion industry as a whole, I’ll be the first in line cheering on regulatory measures that increase the accountability of abortion providers!

    The left will now whine and cry about how increasing regulatory measures increases costs which could limit access, thereby “denying a woman her rights”.

    It’s bad enough that I’m made complicit in the murder of unborn children by having funds taken out of my check every week for Medicaid, and to know that somewhere down the line, that money could be used to kill a baby.

    But they also expect it of those of us who pay into those funds to feel guilty over it when legislators and/or judges display enough of common sense and decency to require abortion providers to adhere to a bare minimum of best standards practice that would protect the life of the mother, too?

    Talk about a bunch of shallow, self-centered, self-serving, hypocritical cheapskates!!!!

    Forget the guilt trip already. It ain’t happening. Bring on the regulatory measures!!

  • afrocraft2

    Let’s review: A woman needs an abortion. Her doctor OK’s the procedure. The woman doesn’t request an ultrasound scan. Her doctor says it’s medically unnecessary. The State says, Heck you must do it, even if you have to stick a probe up her privates. Or else carry the baby to term — even if it kills you, because it’s a high-risk pregnancy, or it’s the product of rape or incest.

    Hmm. How did we get to this in America?

    • falconrap

      number of possible complications, both physical and mental, some of which can lead to the woman never having a baby again, or perhaps dying from infection, yes, the “Doctor” should have to provide all of this information to the “patient”.

      Of course, apparently you aren’t familiar with the procedure and just how invasive it is. Do you think they just beam the fetus out of there? Perhaps they use Cyber Knife on the little one like a cancerous tumor? No, they spread the vaginal cavity wide open and go in there with instruments to kill and remove the child and the placenta. Maybe you should learn more about the actual procedure so that you don’t sound so uninformed talking about it.

    • streiff

      1. If the woman “needs” and abortion she will have an ultrasound to confirm she is in fact pregnant.

      2. The technical name for “her doctor” is “abortionist.” This doctor is not “her doctor” but an employee of a facility that performs abortions.

      3. You don’t have to “stick a probe in her privates.” That is the grostesque lie this story is addressing.

      4. If you don’t carry the baby to term you kill the baby. I don’t see your point.

      We got to this point in America because an unelected panel of judges decided killing babies in utero was not only legal but a Constitutional right.

  • ragstoriches

    Any doctor worth their salt is going to provide a patient with images (x-ray, MRI, PET) of the “problem” before excising it. Cancer? Here’s a picture. Broken bone? Here’s a picture? That nail in your head? Here’s a picture.

    It seems logical, then, that a woman would be shown the foreign body about to be excised from her body.

    Then again, I probably disqualified those who perform abortions by stating “any doctor worth their salt” as no doctor I would trust would find it acceptable to perform the kind of ritualistic torture on a human being currently allowed by law.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Landmark decision from the AL Supreme Court issued yesterday. From the story here:

    A wrongful death case in Alabama calls into question Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

    On Friday the Alabama Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, according to Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, because it allows an individual mother to bring a wrongful death complaint on behalf of her unborn child — even though the baby could not have lived outside the womb at the time the infant died.

    “… The concurring opinion by Justice Tom Parker goes through the historical as well as the legal precedent to show that Roe v. Wade’s viability standard is ill-conceived and ultimately does not apply, but should eventually also be overturned,” the Liberty Counsel founder explains.

    Parker wrote that “Roe’s viability rule was based on inaccurate history and was mostly unsupported by legal precedent. Medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development.”

    That is significant, says Staver. “It clearly shows that viability — the ability to live outside the womb — is just a medical, technological issue and has nothing to do with the dignity of the human being,” states the attorney. “[It says] that the human being is a human being from the moment of conception and should be treated as such through all stages of development.”

    Friday’s Alabama Supreme Court ruling in Hamilton v. Scott was unanimous. Three other justices joined Judge Parker in the concurring opinion.

  • vangoghssister

    My own state of Oklahoma passed the Oklahoma Personhood Act, Senate Bill 1433, which states life begins at conception. The bill, sponsored by Tulsa Senator Brian Crain, was carefully researched and incorporated language that includes what is already constitutionally protected for the unborn from recent Supreme Court decisions and it is as close as it can be in the complete protection of a child that is allowed by the SC. The measure defines the terms ?unborn child? and ?unborn children? to ?include all unborn children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.?

    The following comes from the Personhood USA website:

    From 02/14/2012 ?Virginia?s HB1, introduced by Del. Bob Marshall, declares that ?The life of each human being begins at conception,? that ?Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,? and ?The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.?

    ?The laws of this Commonwealth shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this Commonwealth,? it reads.

    From 01/24/2012 (italics mine) ?Authorities have given the green light to gather signatures for proposed ballot measures in Colorado, Ohio, Montana and California, while legislators in Kansas, Virginia (now passed), Oklahoma (now passed), Wisconsin, Alabama and Georgia have been working on bills that could lead to personhood referendums.?

    ?In Nevada and Arkansas, personhood campaigns also are in place, but have been slowed by disputes over the wording of proposed ballot measures. In Florida, anti-abortion activists are gearing up to seek a referendum in 2014.?

    ?In Colorado, the new personhood measure is considered likely to qualify for the ballot again this year because of the state?s relatively low threshold for petition signatures. It?s frustrating to the state?s abortion-rights activists, who spent heavily to defeat the 2008 and 2010 measures by better than 2-to-1 margins.?

    Of course, Planned Parenthood has something to say:

    ?It?s very clear that one of the goals of the personhood movement is to waste our resources,? said Vicki Cowart, president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. ?Every dollar we?re spending on getting people out to vote is a dollar not spent for birth control or sex education or breast exams.? Yada yada yada?

    I believe there’s hope and change…one state at a time! :-)

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      I want to be clear that I am against all abortion in every circumstance (with the exception of the immediate threat to the mother’s life).

      Oklahoma is the sort of state where a Personhood initiative makes sense. In Colorado, it’s a disaster.

      …who spent heavily to defeat the 2008 and 2010 measures by better than 2-to-1 margins.

      It’s not just the spending. The Personhood amendment has ensured high democrat voter turnout in those years as well. In a purple state like Colorado, that’s usually enough to turn all of the close races over to the Democrats. Personhood will not pass here under the current political makeup of the state, but it will ensure more democrats are elected

  • Marcus_Traianus

    When speaking of virtue he said;

    Now a thing’s perfection is considered chiefly in regard to its end.

    It’s ironic, really, how the entire liberal being is obsessed with controlling, manipulating and destroying life under the guise of some superior utopian vision. How people who tow the liberal line and believe in practices such as abortion can still identify themselves as Christian or some other religious orthodoxy which considers life sacred simply defies logic and reason.

    I am duly amazed with some of my so-called brethren in the Catholic Church who for some reason still consider themselves “practicing Catholics” when they openly disagree with church doctrine on these matters. That would make one perhaps Catholic by birth, but by no means “practicing”.

  • Beech

    So according to the Lib’s reasoning, an abortionist commits two crimes, rape and murder.

  • richsr7

    ONE OF THE WAYS IS TO HAVE CONGRESS PLACE A CLAUSE IN A BILL THAT MAKES A LEGAL ABORTION TO BE ONE THAT TAKES NO MONEY FROM ANY COLECTIVE CITIZENRY; TAXPAYER!IN OTHER WORDS THE ABORTION MUST BE PAID FOR P E R S O N A L L Y BY THE PERSON HAVING THE ABORTION.
    THIS MEANS NO PUBLIC FUNDS.NO WELFARE MONEY CAUSING EVERY CITIZEN TO JOIN IN THE COST OF THE ABORTION.

    NO CITY, TOWN, COUNTY, STATE, OR FEDERAL MONEY!
    THE ABORTION REQUESTER MUST EARN THE MONEY OR FIND A WAY TO NOT PASS THE COST ON TO ANY TAXPAYER.
    IN TODAY’S TECHNOLOGY, THERE IS NO REASON FOR AN ABORTION FOR THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER!