Ultrasound Cacophony: The Left’s Newest Pro-Abortion Lie

In the Commonwealth of Virginia the left has a new attack against those that want to regulate abortions. The legislature in the Old Dominion introduced legislation to require ultrasounds to be performed before an abortion could be performed. Idiotically, leftists cried foul claiming the requirement is somehow “like” getting raped. Yet a new study show that the left’s favorite abortion mill, Planned Parenthood, performs ultrasounds before abortions in 99% of its operations.

Talk about making fools of themselves, the left has done it again.

First, let’s look at the left’s claim, though. Speaking for the pro-infanticide set, Dahlia Lithwck at Slate makes the case:

This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. 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. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under the federal definition.

Apparently, this absurd line of “reasoning” is “spreading like wildfire” among the far left.

Not only is this “rape” claim an absurdity made merely to cause fear and loathing, but the law doesn’t require a transvaginal ultrasound in the first place. The law leaves the method up to the physician.

But there is more to the hypocrisy of the left’s ultrasound attack. Many types of abortions by absolute necessity require invasive vaginal insertions of medical instruments. So, how is an ultrasound “like” rape, but the abortions that require vaginal insertion of instruments isn’t? There is no logic at all to these screaming mimis and their claims.

Further, now we are discovering that most of the abortions that occur in the left’s favorite abortion mill, Planned Parenthood, already have these ultrasounds performed before abortions are undertaken.

Surveying 72 of the abortion businesses that sold the abortion pill to women, the researchers found abortion facilities frequently use vaginal ultrasounds before an abortion to determine the gestational age of the baby or afterwards to determine of the abortion was complete. In fact 99 percent of the abortion facilities surveyed always or sometimes performed an ultrasound in association with the surgical abortion — while just one percent did not.

If their own infanticide factories already do these things, why is the left suddenly against the bill in Virginia? Only because they are against all regulations whatever. They want abortion at will for any reason and that, as we say, is that.

There simply is no logic at all to their tactics here.

CNN "Tries" To Be Impartial
"Cut a check and shut up"
  • JWH

    You’re off-base on several accounts:

    1)  Events have overtaken this blog post.  Gov. McDonnell has already asked the state legislature to revise the bill, and the General Assembly is now considering an amended version of the bill that only requires transabdominal ultrasounds, leaving the transvaginal ultrasounds purely optional

    2)  Even if the bill did not specifically mandate a transvaginal ultrasound in so many words, requiring ultrasounds in the first twelve weeks would have by necessity required that they be transvaginal.  

    3)  In your comparison of circumstances of penetration, you neglect one factor:  consent.  On the one hand, a doctor recommends an aspect of a procedure, and the patient agrees to it, establishing consent.  On the other, the state mandates a procedure, and the patient must undergo a procedure that is otherwise left to the patient in consultation with her physician.

    • jim_m

      On the other, the state mandates a procedure, and the patient must undergo a procedure that is otherwise left to the patient in consultation with her physician.

      And this is different from 0bamacare how?  If government can force you to get healthcare insurance or pay a fine then it can force you to get an ultrasound, transvaginal or not, before you get an abortion. 

      Remember lack of activity is still action under the 0bama admin justification for 0bamacare.

      Suck it up libs.  You demanded that people be forced to get health insurance, well the knife cuts both ways.

      • JWH

        Not quite.  An individual mandate is adjunct to the federal Commerce Clause power (at least in theory, still to be tested).  The ultrasound bill implicates state-level police powers as well as the right to privacy.  

        • jim_m

          Um… If you can force people into paying for something they do not othewise want then you can force them into getting an ultrasound that they do not otherwise want.  The argument the administration made is that non-activity is still a regulatable activity.  Any justification that can be applied to forcing people to get healthcare insurance can just as easily be applied here.

          It does not violate their right to privacy as their privacy is protected under HIPAA.

          • JWH

            Jim …

            Wrong privacy. HIPAA covers medical privacy. I’m looking to a more general privacy right, as articulated by the courts.

            I think that individual mandate was structured poorly anyway …

          • jim_m

            Agreed the mandate is very poorly done. In fact it ought to be unconstitutional. 

            If you can force people to do things then the commerce clause is sufficient justification to force women to do this. 

            Privacy doesn’t mean a damn thing.  You can force religious organizations to pay for contraception so there is no longer any 1st amendment protection of religious liberty.

            I simply do not get where you libs get off all of a sudden claiming constitutional rights when you really don’t give a damn about them until it is your rights or your special intrest disappearing under the government bus.

            I don’t necessarily agree with this either but since you don’t care about my rights I say screw ’em. I’m no longer in a position to argue about preserving rights since you already decided that I don’t have any.

          • JWH

            Honestly, Jim, I’ve done a little more research (prompted in part by Walter Cronanty’s information on RFRA) since we clashed about the Catholic/contraceptive issue, and the bishops may have more of a case than I thought, at least for Church-affiliated institutions.

            As far as Obamacare … the more I think about it, the more I would have preferred a catastrophic Medicare for All-type system. Basically, everybody gets enrolled in a national HDHP — or state-level HDHP — that covers any person’s medical expenses in excess of about $10,000 per year per individual, $18,000 per family. If you want insurance that covers that first $10,000 of expenses each year, go out and buy a gap policy. If you don’t want the gap insurance, then you’re SOL if you can’t pay your under 10 grand.

          • JWH

            I don’t necessarily agree with this either but since you don’t care about my rights I say screw ’em. I’m no longer in a position to argue about preserving rights since you already decided that I don’t have any. 

            Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I have a certain antipathy for the GOP these days. 

          • jim_m

             Oh, so you have a problem when the people who you’ve been arguing we should take rights away from decide that they don’t want to support you when you want to preserve something you consider a right?  I guess maybe you should start to care about the rights of others then.

          • JWH

            You’re making a lot of assumptions there, Jim. 

            I’ve developed a lot of antipathy toward the right wing over the last couple years after some of the mosque controversies.  
            More broadly, while I’ve often agreed with the GOP on economic issues, I’ve never been 100 percent aboard on social issues … and the GOP’s emphasis on social issues over the last couple decades has decreased our points of commonality.  

            As far as religious exemptions from government mandates, I’m simply cautious.  You have two different extremes.At one end lie extreme Christian Scientist parents, who have insisted that as a matter of religious rights, they should be permitted not to obtain medical treatment for their children.  When those children have grown extremely ill, or even died, those parents (quite rightly, IMO) face criminal charges.  I don’t think freedom from religion is license to be a negligent parent.  At the other end, you have something like Germany, where you have to get specific government sanction to be a religion, and the Germans  won’t recognize Scientology.  

            In the middle is a lot of ground, and I think exemptions need to be weighed on a case-by-case basis.  

          • SoBeRight

             Yeah – when it comes to women the GOP literally says – YOU have no choice – we will put this instrument inside your body even though it isn’t medically called for – you have no choice.

            No wonder moderates are abandoning the GOP. Some of their positions just reek of  hypocrisy – showing in this isntance that they don’t really mind government imposed mandates as long as THEY get to choose what the mandates are…

            They lie about being forced to do something then turn right around and advocate the very same thing.

            2012 is ours.

          • jim_m

            You miss my point and by missing it prove it.

            My point is that you have backed a law that says that the government is allowed to force you to do things against your will and against your conscience.  You say that people should be forced under penalty of law to get health insurance.  You also say that religious organizations should be forced to pay for contraception and aborttions that they think are wrong and that the 1st amendment does not protect them.

            You say all these things ans then you come and complain that your side is having their rights violated?  Can’t you see that you have already destroyed the foundation that protects whatever rights we had?  After 0bamacare our rights are only what the government allows us and those are only temporary until the government changes its mind.

          • SoBeRight

            and you say the government shouldn’t do those things, and then turn right around and defend it when the mandate suits your purpose.

            Proving my point – that you don’t really care about government mandates as long as they (1) are against women and 2) church approved.

            Welcome to the finish line – you lose. You’re a hypocrite, plain and simple.

          • jim_m

             If you could read, I say elsewhere that I’m not a big backer of this ultrasound law.  So no, I am not a hypocrite.

          • But hey the govt can force you to eat certain things, drive certain cars, perform certain actiivities and have certain health care and it is perfectly okay with the left.

            Oh and women do have a choice. They can either not get an abortion or go to a state which doesnt require it.

        • Scalia

          The individual mandate has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause.

      • JWH

        But to tell the truth, I am at least somewhat troubled with the federal government getting as deeply involved in healthcare as PPACA puts it.  While it doesn’t necessarily set the legal precedent for such things, it certainly sets new norms.  

  • SoBeRight

    You guys whine about Obama Care then come up with a plan for the government (in this case the State of Virginia)  whereby the government decides that you will submit to medical procedures they choose, which are not medically called for, and the woman has no say in the matter.

    Yes, she is literally raped by agents of the government.

    And you must be able to see that and are just blinded by your ideology. Its incredible.

    Here, lie down on the table – you have no choice – we’re now going to put this instrument inside your body – you have no choice….

    • jim_m

      Hey, the left has provided all the legal justificatio for forcing this on women.  Frankly, I’m not a big supporter of it, but you decifded that the government can force people to do things that they weren’t doing as a justification for making people buy health insurance.

      That’s right:  You have no choice.  You must buy insurance or the government will fine you.  Now that the government is going to control healthcare and what gets paid, they can pretty well demand that you get whatever health care they want.  Too f-ing bad if you don’t like it.

      • Brucehenry

        Fine, the matter is settled. You will henceforth quit bitching about the mandate. If you are fine with the VA mandate of unnecessary invasive probes you must be fine with being forced to buy insurance.

        BTW I think it’s hilarious that a comment section nearly 100% male has no problem with having probes stuck up unwilling women’s hoo-haws because the state tells them they must have this done “for the children.”

        Nice job going on offense, though, Jim. It’s probably the only way to defend the indefensible, no matter how disingenuous.

        • Vs they must have access to abortion “For the children”

        • jim_m

           Have you read all of my posts?  Obviuosly not.

          My point is that the government has no business here.  My point is that idiot leftists like yourself have all sorts of problems with this violation of rights (let’s not bother talking about what has to be stuck up a woman’s vagina in order to perform an abortion), but you have no problem with violating the rights of people you disagree with.

          You still cannot see your own hypocrisy in this. And you wonder why I call you facists,

          • Brucehenry

            You know what the point of this proposed law is, Jim? It isn’t really about “informed consent” at all. It’s purpose is to humiliate and punish women who want an abortion.

            Did you know there’s a provision in this law that if the woman refuses to look at the ultrasound image, a note is made in her medical file to that effect? What is the medical purpose of this provision?

            BTW, YOUR point is that the government has no business here? I thought you said you were fine with the government vaginal probes as long as everyone had to have insurance. Sauce for the gander, or something.

            I got no problem with telling 28 year olds they don’t have a right to free ER care anymore just because they don’t feel like paying for insurance to cover it, but I promise I don’t want the government putting anything into anyone’s orifices against their will.

          • jim_m

             Hyperbole Bruce.  DO you not get the point that you are OK with violating people’s 1st amendment rights but that you have a big problem with this? 

            You care so much about this but you couldn’t give a damn about religious freedom.  So yeah, while you are up in arms about people taking your rights away I really don’t feel sorry for you because you cheered them on when they were taking mine away.

            But I could stand with you to protect your rights and you’d still turn your back on me.  Sorry.  I’m not playing that game.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, hyperbole, perhaps. I’m rather given to it. BTW, are we talking about the Obamacare mandate or the whole Catholic/contraception thingie?

            I haven’t weighed in on Wizbang about the contraception thing because I’m not sure how I feel about it. I haven’t cheered anyone on.

            But as the father of daughters, I’m damn sure I don’t want the state to have the power — for ANY reason — to tell them they must accept a vaginal probe to receive a legal medical procedure.

            I tell ya what’s NOT hyperbole — that this proposed VA law is meant to humiliate and punish women who want abortions.

            EDIT: I did participate in a couple of threads re: Church/contraception, but basically to point out that your “money is fungible” argument was invalid in my opinion.

          • jim_m

             I’m talking about both frankly.  I believe that both are unconstitutional infringements on our rights.

            My bad if you have not weighed in on the one.

            While I would say that if more women were informed about fetal development fewer would want o have an abortion, I don’t think this is the right way to go about informing them.

    • jim_m

      And you must be able to see that and are just blinded by your ideology. Its incredible.

      No.  What’s incredible is your blindness to your hypocrisy. You are all for forcing people to do what YOU want, but you get all cranky when people start to be forced to do things you object to. Too bad.

      • SoBeRight

         Exactly! Too bad – well chosen words… that’s what the GOP says to women before they perform the government-ordered rape.

        • jim_m

          So you are agianst 0bamacare?  You are so hot about this then why are you not against the dems who have provided the justification for forcing this?

          Oh, yeah, you don’t care when it’s other people’s rights being violated.  You don’t care if it is the 1st amendment going under the bus.  But when it’s threatening your right to murder unborn children, Lookout!

          You whole pose about protecting other people’s rights is just that: a pose. You really don’t care about rights except where they are ones that you might want to exercise. Other people don’t matter and their rights are not worth fussing about.

          • SoBeRight

             I’m in favor of Obama care, and against government mandated rape.

            You disagree.

            Good luck in the 2012 election. Women are 52% of the vote you know.

          • jim_m

             As I have said that you are for violating people’s rights when it makes you feel good, but when your own ox gets gored you pitch a fit. 

            And I have known several women who have had abortions.  They all regret it.  It isn’t as popular as you might think.

    • Stephen

      Sounds like your typical left wing govt to me.

  • JWH


    This blog post wasn’t about the individual mandate, but since you want to discuss it, I do have a question for you.

    The individual mandate is there to stop free riders in the healthcare system.  That is, people who show up at the ER with kids in tow, then can’t pay their medical bills, or people who don’t buy health insurance until they’re suddenly suspicious they might have cancer.  

    In the absence of the individual mandate, how would you take care of these free riders? 

  • JWH


    This blog post wasn’t about the individual mandate, but since you want to discuss it, I do have a question for you.

    The individual mandate is there to stop free riders in the healthcare system.  That is, people who show up at the ER with kids in tow, then can’t pay their medical bills, or people who don’t buy health insurance until they’re suddenly suspicious they might have cancer.  

    In the absence of the individual mandate, how would you take care of these free riders? 

    • jim_m

       That’s easy.  The way we do it now is that we provide for charitable payment.  Hospitals and physicians will waive fees and do millions of dollars of free work.  They used to do more before Medicaid taught them that they had to charge patients no matter how destitute the patient was.

      If you look at our cancer data we run higher cure rates in Prostate cancer than we have insurance coverage.  So people are either getting the money to pay or they are getting charity.

      Charity has historically been there for patients who can’t afford expensive treatment.  And for those who can afford insurance but try to game the system and lose?  WHy should I care if they end up broke?  They made a choice, they lost, they should reap the consequences.  There is too much of a sense that people should not reap the consequences of their actions.

      • Brucehenry

        Not only will they end up broke, their credit rating ruined, etc, but their failure to pay, or to fully pay, drives up the premiums for everyone else. Which is the fucking point of the mandate. And which is also the reason you should care.

        • Bruce

          Why not make it where if you arent insured than you are fully liable for your complete hospital bill?  Then people have an incentive to get insurance but the freedom to not do so if they so wish.

          In addition, make it legal to buy insurance across state lines which from what I have heard is not possible at this time.  

          • Brucehenry

            What if you ARE “fully liable” for your medical bills? If you don’t have the money, you don’t have it, “liable” or not. Which makes everyone who DOES have insurance pay higher premiums.

            And OHHH yes, health insurance in Wyoming is so much cheaper than in North Carolina. Right. Why, we could save dozens of dollars every year!

          • Bruce.   You know as well as I do that competition breeds lower prices and more economy.  Your state by state comparision is kinda lame considering that neither state is in competition.

            As to  your statement

            “Which makes everyone who DOES have insurance pay higher premiums.”
             you have a point.  But more folks would have insurance if they have something to lose for one and for two isnt the situation you are describing the one we are in now?  And arent we talking about ways to improve it?

          • Brucehenry

            We can get credit cards “across state lines.” As a result, Delaware and South Dakota issue most of them. Those two states have the most lax regulations, making it easier for CC companies to screw their customers. I’m not so sure I want the same situation to obtain in the case of health insurance.

            One of the ways in which the situation I’m describing can be improved is called “the individual mandate.” Maybe you’ve heard of it. It was supported, as recently as 2009, by 3 of the remaining 4 Republican presidential candidates. It became unconstitutional and unAmerican as soon as they heard Obama was in favor of it, though.

  • herddog505

    As deeply as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with the lefties on this one.  While stipulating that abortion is nothing other than infanticide by another name, it’s generally not a good idea to try to right a wrong with another wrong.

    Forcing a woman to have a medical procedure, even with the most noble intent, is wrong.  If the state can force a woman to have an ultrasound, what else might it force her to do?

    • jim_m

       I agree, but I would like to point out the lefty hypocrisy that whines about violating people’s rights while they force 0bamacare down our throats and invalidate the 1st amendment.

      • herddog505

        Oh, no two ways about it.  That’s why agreeing with them made me physically ill.

    • Evil Otto

      I agree, herddog. This is walking the same path the left does, even for a good cause. That’s what they always tell us whenever they try and cram the latest intrusion down our throats… “it’s for your own good.”

  • I am not against the ultrasounds as long as they are not invasive.  That being said a woman can go to a state where there is no ultrasound law or wait until a noninvasive ultrasound can be preformed. 
    If they are going to get an invasive ultrasound after the procedure than they should have no problem with one before the procedure though.

  • DocEpador

    There is one HELL of a lot of BS being thrown about regarding this issue.

    Ya know, you need a GYN exam before you get birth control pills (no more or less invasive than a transvaginal ultrasound).  It that rape too?

    The intent of the law directs that, with a procedure that is standard of care to perform, one actively documents having the mother observe the results (or so refuse).

    So no one is being forced to have study that is medically unnecessary,  but they are being intimidated into observing the results of the study.

    I wonder how long it will take for the first woman to claim she has PT(ab)SD after being forced to watch the ultrasound and then has the abortion (anyways)?  Hope the VA legislature has a BIG coffer of money set aside to settle those suits.  And pay their lifelong disability claims.

    This is just another example of what happens when government gets into the business of paying for medical care, especially discretionary care.

  • Jay

    Hey um… This entire battle?  The one about contraception and birth control?

    It’s going right to Obama.

    Small suggestion for the GOP.  Stop turning away women voters.  Just a suggestion…

  • TomInCali

    Is this post for real, or for The Onion? You’re saying that because women can choose to have an invasive medical procedure, that makes it OK for the state to require that they have one? This is excellent logic. Because a woman sometimes consents to allowing a penis into her vagina, it’s therefore not rape to put one into her without her consent.

  • http://ipone-m.com
    nice photos,thanks

  • Pingback: Your DaleyGator Wild, Wacky, Funny, Sexy and Truly Compelling Link-A-Round! Updated through the weekend « The Daley Gator()