Virginia is about to legalize rape against women

[Alyeska]

For the sole purpose of discouraging them from getting abortions.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... qus_thread

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/1 ... our-vagina

A comment from the "Friendly Atheist" blog sums up the intention.

I_Claudia
It's worth noting that they rejected an amendment that would have given the alternative of an external ultrasound if it could provide the same kind of information. That means that the Republicans explicitly wanted women and girls requiring an abortion to be vaginally penetrated, even if there was no medical reason for doing so and less invasive alternatives.

[Darth Wong]

For the sole purpose of discouraging them from getting abortions.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... qus_thread

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/1 ... our-vagina

A comment from the "Friendly Atheist" blog sums up the intention.

I_Claudia
It's worth noting that they rejected an amendment that would have given the alternative of an external ultrasound if it could provide the same kind of information. That means that the Republicans explicitly wanted women and girls requiring an abortion to be vaginally penetrated, even if there was no medical reason for doing so and less invasive alternatives.

In order words, "we gots to teach them sluts a lesson!"

[SirNitram]

As ever and always, it's about power and control. This explains the why instantly.

[Eulogy]

Expect lots of civil disobedience and women getting their abortions done out of state. Congrats, morons, you took business away from your state's medical industry while women take alternatives that don't require unneeded, invasive and expensive procedures or humiliation and ostracization.

But by all means, keep turning birth control, contraception, and abortions into something only the black market can provide!

[Sidewinder]

Question for members from Virginia: Is it legal and convenient to get an abortion OUTSIDE that God-forsaken hellhole? (I'm assuming yes for the first part, no for the second, because Virginia is a fairly large state.)

[Flagg]

The GOP: Getting government out of our lives and into women's uterus's since 1973.

[Eulogy]

Question for members from Virginia: Is it legal and convenient to get an abortion OUTSIDE that God-forsaken hellhole? (I'm assuming yes for the first part, no for the second, because Virginia is a fairly large state.)

It doesn't really matter. because Virginian women who want them will go to other states where abortion is legal and for obvious reasons won't advertise the fact; mere inconvenience won't stop them. I daresay they can do this without anyone else even realizing that said women were pregnant in the first place. Yes, abortion is legal elsewhere in the US.

[Vympel]

Being not too familiar with US constitutional law, is there an avenue for challenging this?

[Alyeska]

Being not too familiar with US constitutional law, is there an avenue for challenging this?

I would call this law extortion myself. Its the same as a boss walking up to a female employee and going "If you want a raise, let me put this dildo in you". There is no real consent.

I wonder if the medical community can even do this. It is an invasive procedure that serves no actual purpose and clearly there is no real consent from a patient. That might be the angle to attack.

JC Interrupted over on SB.com reports that this type of ultrasound procedure was tacked on to Abortions in Oklahoma as well. But that it passed the initial court challenges as justified.

Given that the house deliberately rejected an amendment allowing non-invasive ultrasounds, a court could strike this law down as being deliberately harmful in intent.

[Flagg]

Being not too familiar with US constitutional law, is there an avenue for challenging this?

Of course. The problem is that the pro-choice movement is deathly afraid that our conservative leaning SCOTUS will overturn abortion completely. That's why you have seen so many of these "personhood amendments" pop up in various states defining life as beginning at conception and effectively making abortion illegal. So far none have passed because it would effectively ban most contraception.

[The Yosemite Bear]

As ever and always, it's about power and control. This explains the why instantly.

which according to studies of abberent psych is exactly what rape is about...

[Flagg]

Being not too familiar with US constitutional law, is there an avenue for challenging this?

I would call this law extortion myself.

All laws are extortion. "Do or don't do this or we do something undesirable to you".

[Sidewinder]

All laws are extortion. "Do or don't do this or we do something undesirable to you".

Most laws have the interests of those following the laws, in mind. "Pay taxes, because taxes pay for Social Security, Medicare, and other services you might need." THIS, on the other hand...

[Darth Wong]

Question for members from Virginia: Is it legal and convenient to get an abortion OUTSIDE that God-forsaken hellhole? (I'm assuming yes for the first part, no for the second, because Virginia is a fairly large state.)

It doesn't really matter. because Virginian women who want them will go to other states where abortion is legal and for obvious reasons won't advertise the fact; mere inconvenience won't stop them. I daresay they can do this without anyone else even realizing that said women were pregnant in the first place. Yes, abortion is legal elsewhere in the US.

What you say is true ... for Virginian woman who have money. The poor ones can't afford to do that.

Do you see how brilliant this is? By doing this at the state level, these conservative douchebags get to pander to the religious right without taking away choices from their own wives and daughters, or for that matter, the suburban soccer moms and dads who form much of their base. The only people who lose out in this arrangement are poor people, and Republicans hate them anyway. And they get to continue demonizing the "liberal" states which continue to provide these services. No wonder they've been working so hard to effectively ban abortion at the state level, while making only token efforts to stop it at the federal level. It's Machiavellian evil genius.

[Sea Skimmer]

They don't try at the federal level because they know even if they got the two thirds vote in congress, ratification by 75% of states would never happen. Meanwhile if they pass a state law they can keep it in force for a considerable period of time even if its ultimately struck down by a federal court. Also, its an election year and republicans are struggling to mobilize the base, so expect them to be as crazy as possible.

[Darth Wong]

They don't try at the federal level because they know even if they got the two thirds vote in congress, ratification by 75% of states would never happen. Meanwhile if they pass a state law they can keep it in force for a considerable period of time even if its ultimately struck down by a federal court. Also, its an election year and republicans are struggling to mobilize the base, so expect them to be as crazy as possible.

Fair enough; I might be ascribing too much conspiratorial intelligence to their actions.

[Baffalo]

I just checked and Arkansas defines legal abortion as any abortion carried out prior to the 25th week of pregnancy, in the case of rape, in the case of a minor, or in the case of risk to the mother's health. Pretty standard. But what I wanted to point out was Arkansas has a unique position in that we're a fairly poor state, and so almost all major medical centers are located in Little Rock, meaning anything the local doc can't fix has to go there if it's serious. This means trips to the center of the state are fairly common, especially for major sporting events, but that means if Arkansas passed such a law, it'd be hell on many people in the state, even the rich ones. Then again, the large voter base up around Fayetteville is almost as large as the rest of the state and Arkansas nearly went blue in 2008 (there's 2 democrat and 4 republicans in Congress atm). So who knows... Arkansas might be one of the few states that pushes against this nonsense.

[Darth Wong]

By the way, I would argue that the thread title is misleading. Virginia is not about to legalize rape against women. Instead, Virginia is about to require rape of women who try to get abortions.

[Darth Wong]

I just checked and Arkansas defines legal abortion as any abortion carried out prior to the 25th week of pregnancy, in the case of rape, in the case of a minor, or in the case of risk to the mother's health. Pretty standard. But what I wanted to point out was Arkansas has a unique position in that we're a fairly poor state, and so almost all major medical centers are located in Little Rock, meaning anything the local doc can't fix has to go there if it's serious. This means trips to the center of the state are fairly common, especially for major sporting events, but that means if Arkansas passed such a law, it'd be hell on many people in the state, even the rich ones. Then again, the large voter base up around Fayetteville is almost as large as the rest of the state and Arkansas nearly went blue in 2008 (there's 2 democrat and 4 republicans in Congress atm). So who knows... Arkansas might be one of the few states that pushes against this nonsense.

Judging from the size of the state, you could get to Little Rock from pretty much anywhere in Arkansas in four hours or less in a car, which is not what I'd call "hell". It could be a problem for poor people, but if you have money, it's not an issue.

[Alyeska]

By the way, I would argue that the thread title is misleading. Virginia is not about to legalize rape against women. Instead, Virginia is about to require rape of women who try to get abortions.

It was deliberately inflammatory. And my creativity was limited by the character limit.

[Sea Skimmer]

Fair enough; I might be ascribing too much conspiratorial intelligence to their actions.

I think so. Keep in mind throughout the 1990s the federal congress attempted to pass the ban on partial birth abortion, and finally did so only in 2003 when they had Bush around to sign it. The Supreme Court upheld it 5-4 a few years ago on the basis that it makes up a tiny fraction of abortions and amounted to killing an infant during birth, which it pretty much is given that a number of cases existed of live births stemming from doctors screwing it up. However even that law didn't pass with two thirds majority as an amendment must, though it was very close to that majority in the house. That's as far as the federal level is ever likely to be pushed without some kind of landslide republican victory on top of the victory they had in 2010 at both state and federal level, which isn't bloody likely if the economy doesn't tank again.

In addition the anti abortion movement in the US gains support from people who think it should be purely a state issue, and that's been a big bone to rally opposition of Roe v Wade around, even if most people are firmly on one side or the other of the topic. It makes a good talking point to whip up said supporters and try to paint the issue as being something other then just about abortion. Push for stuff at the federal level and that talking point isn't so useful.

[SirNitram]

As ever and always, it's about power and control. This explains the why instantly.

which according to studies of abberent psych is exactly what rape is about...

Bear, that's what I meant. They wish to exert power and control.. Rape is just another tool to this end.

[Vympel]

Re: the constitutional issue:-

Link

Of course, the bill is unconstitutional. The whole point of the new abortion bans is to force the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade. It’s unconstitutional to place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, although it’s anyone’s guess what, precisely, that means. One would be inclined to suspect, however, that unwanted penetration with a medical device violates either the undue burden test or the right to bodily autonomy. But that’s the other catch in this bill. Proponents seem to be of the view that once a woman has allowed a man to penetrate her body once, her right to bodily autonomy has ended.

So there is a chance.

This is fucking amazing:-

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.) Virginia Democrat Del. David Englin, who opposes the bill, has said Gilbert’s statement “is in line with previous Republican comments on the issue,” recalling one conversation with a GOP lawmaker who told him that women had already made the decision to be "vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant." (I confirmed with Englin that this quote was accurate.)*

That’s the same logic that animates the bill’s sponsor in the House of Delegates, Del. Kathy J. Byron, who insisted this week that, “if we want to talk about invasiveness, there's nothing more invasive than the procedure that she is about to have." Decoded, that means that if you are willing to submit to sex and/or an abortion, the state should be allowed to penetrate your body as well.

Wow. Just wow. Dem wymyns have already been vaginally penetrated, therefore they should be raped by the fucking state! Just breathtaking - consent means nothing to these disgusting fucking animals.

[Stark]

The sad part is that they're not even concerned about their pretext of 'show the woman the cut little baby awww don't kill the baby awww'; they want this done even if it provides no information a regular ultrasound doesn't.

At best it's clumsy social engineering, at worst it's perverse institutionalised sexual abuse for literally no gain beyond the delusion of social control.

The only scary part is that they're so open about it. What does that say about the electorate?

[Darth Wong]

The sad part is that they're not even concerned about their pretext of 'show the woman the cut little baby awww don't kill the baby awww'; they want this done even if it provides no information a regular ultrasound doesn't.

At best it's clumsy social engineering, at worst it's perverse institutionalised sexual abuse for literally no gain beyond the delusion of social control.

The only scary part is that they're so open about it. What does that say about the electorate?

Have you ever met one of these people? They can look you right in the face and say anything with a smile. They say things that you thought only a cartoon character would say, and they honestly have no idea that they could be considered odd, or offensive.