Here’s some great news. The governor of Virginia signed a bill demanding that mothers take a gander at the little human they’re intending to kill.
The Washington Post reports:
Abdominal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions in Virginia will become mandatory on July 1 under a law signed Wednesday by Gov. Bob McDonnell, who faced a political uproar before lawmakers deleted language that would have made the exams medically invasive.
The conservative Republican governor’s signature means abortion providers statewide will have to comply. It also requires patients who live within 100 miles of the clinic where the abortion is performed to wait 24 hours after the ultrasound.
The bill not only sparked protests the past three weeks by angry women’s rights groups and others that led to 30 arrests at the Capitol Saturday, it subjected Virginia to scorn by columnists and political talk shows and ridicule from television comedians earlier when language was still in the bill that would have required women wanting abortions to submit to vaginal ultrasounds.
Predictably, pro-abort women were outraged because nothing says feminism like legislating that women be kept in the dark.
Remember, pro-aborts are all about choice, not informed choice.
Think about how meek this law actually is. It’s not saying you can’t kill your unborn child. It’s just saying you have to look at your victim before you kill them. That’s all. But somehow this is played as a war on women, a vicious assault on women.
March 8, 2012 at 7:01 am
I am a faithful, pro-life Catholic woman. But I am opposed to a government mandate of an invasive ultrasound. The more conventional and non-invasive abdominal ultrasound is one thing, but forcing a vaginal procedure is government intrusion taken to an extreme. I don't care that the woman is scheduled for an abortion. This just crosses the line.
If the ultrasound was selected by the abortionist for medical reasons, as it could be prior to a chemical abortion, and the woman has given consent, that is different from the state demanding it because of its desire for her to see a clear picture of her baby. It's a fine distinction, but it's a critical one.
Most pro-lifers are also conservatives, and it is hypocrisy to complain about government over-reach on the one hand while demanding it on the other. There should be a limit to how far we are willing to go to stop a woman from having an abortion.
March 8, 2012 at 7:31 am
For a minority owned business, there are special grants, loans, real estate deals, and special licensing that will help a small business owner start out on the best of terms that they can. There are some great deals here for small businesses that are just starting out and those who have been in business for a while, as long as they will register their business in that particular area.
March 8, 2012 at 8:02 am
I think this is great! I think this country has NOT gone far enough to discourage abortions. A step in the right way.
March 8, 2012 at 11:05 am
It makes no sense to object to an ultrasound scan of the baby being taken in the context of the baby being about to be violently killed and the mother's womb violently invaded, and often permanently damaged. Anything that might help wake the mother up to the wonder, the reality, of her baby and her natural instinct to protect him, and avert the murder of an innocent baby, is good. The implementation of the requirement is another matter – I can't see abortion clinics whose object is to kill the baby, carrying the scan out properly. I imagine they will just pretend to.
March 8, 2012 at 11:05 am
They were discussing this yesterday on BBC radio. One of the contributors was an outraged American "feminist" who said- and I directly quote! –
"these laws force the expectant moth…..er…..*silence*….uhhh…. woman, woman with a fetus, to view […]"
Even they know the truth, sometimes it comes out. I was amazed that after that verbal gaffe no one else on the show called her on it. It was crazy.
March 8, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Catherine Alexander: How can you be so blind? The woman this, the woman that. And not give a thought about the tiny woman who is about to get murdered. You're not pro-life.
Hypocrisy? Really? Forcing a vaginal procedure? Just what is abortion if not a vaginal procedure.
March 8, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Catherine Alexander, the bill no longer requires a transvaginal ultrasound and instead allows women to opt for an abdominal ultrasound. Considering it takes place entirely outside of the mother, I don't think it's fair to call it invasive.
March 8, 2012 at 6:48 pm
The initial, true government overreach is the legal murder of the child in the womb. The child in the womb is not protected under the law. Abortion is legalized barbarism. Any law that stops abortion is *actually* deregulation. Data shows that 80% of women choose life after seeing the ultrasound. Tough cookies if a woman is forced to get an abdominal ultrasound so that she can murder her child.
Furthermore, the argument that the trans-vaginal ultrasound was akin to rape was ridiculous. First, ultrasound technology is so good now that a trans-vaginal ultrasound is only required prior to 6 weeks gestation. Most women have just found out they are pregnant at this point. By the time they would require an ultrasound, it would be abdominal. Second, by this argument every OB/gyn would be in jail. Have these women ever had a pap smear? Internal exam? Look, I've had a trans-vaginal ultrasounds, pap-smears, and internal exams. If the first is considered rape, then surely the other two should be too.
As a pro-life, faithful Catholic, don't fall for the woman-is-always-victim tripe.
March 8, 2012 at 7:20 pm
While I'm not criticizing that lawmakers took out the vaginal ultrasound requirement to override spurious objections, I can't help but marvel at the hypocrisy of its critics. A vaginal ultrasound would be the least part of the process of ripping a child out of the womb piece by piece. One real medical procedure is invasive and the other "medical procedure" isn't? If the invasive nature of the procedure is the real concern, abortion would be illegal just on that alone.
March 11, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Invasive? That's a matter of perspective. When a woman WANTS a baby, she can't WAIT to schedule her seven-ish to nine-ish week appointment and have that vaginal ultrasound. Trust me, no one uses the word "invasive" on that day. There is no way you can call that clearly beating heart a clump of cells, which is the whole point of this requirement. By that stage, if you have an abortion, you are stopping a beating heart. Period.
March 14, 2012 at 4:46 am
My understanding is that they *added* clarifying language, not that they removed language; namely, the original bill didn't say anything about transvaginal anything, which makes this whole flap especially mystifying. And they like to phrase it as though they are legislating that the woman must have it, when really it's on the abortion clinic to make sure it is offered, and then she is welcome to refuse (although most PP clinics require it anyway).
I have some questions for the people who oppose the bill, since a lot of them seem to think we're fair game for this sort of 'gotcha' stuff. For instance, 1) Do you agree with putting graphic images on cigarette boxes as a warning? 2) Do you want to see more regulations to curb predatory lending practices?
There may be a right to remain ignorant, but don't think it's going to raise any fellow female in my esteem; it may even get you a derisive sneer.