I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a winning argument. Not legally, and probably not in the court of public opinion.

I think a lot of people don't even know what transvaginal ultrasounds are so they don't realize what these laws are requiring. Frankly requiring any unnecessary (and costly) medical procedure on women who want an abortion amounts to an attempt at punishment and is unethical and immoral in my opinion.

transvaginal ultrasound.

Even the Wisconsin one.

<snip>

According to the law, the ultrasound provision lets women choose between transvaginal and abdominal ultrasounds.

<snip>

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/05/wisconsin-governor-signs-tougher-abortion-bill/

That's usually not possible very early in pregnancy and a transvaginal is therefore required.

And why should any ultrasound be required?

...and it's a MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY procedure forced on her by the state and in most cases, the woman herself has to pay for it.

It's legislated, "legalized" RAPE.

For the majority of abortions as I believe 90% are performed in the first trimester. The lawmakers know what they're doing here.

ultrasound of my 5 week old embryo in my fallopian tube. I could see it. There was a MEDICAL reason for that ultrasound.

That is a crock that they are using transvaginal ultrasounds to see "early pregnancy". Humiliation, and rape, in my opinion.

Not a pleasant experience.

You must allow a less intrusive medical procedure.

That's sort of like not calling it assault if a woman is forced to fellate the perpetrator instead of being vaginally raped.

So is the TSA's antics at the airports, and your desire to fly is considered consent to the screening process.

It's not right, but I'm just sayin', this is only a valid rhetorical comparison, not an actionable legal point, unfortunately.

TSA didn't stick anything INTO my body.

Nor did they force me to pay for the privilege of a completely unnecessary procedure.

I was forced to go through the scanning machine, or be groped. Certainly a lower level of invasiveness by an order of magnitude, but still a 'you want to do X, you must first do Y even though Y isn't something you desire, you agreed to it when you paid your ticket/came into the clinic'.

It's probably entirely legal for them to require it.

Therefore, we must work to hold the legislatures with people who are not complete fucking patriarchal barbarians, so they don't pass such shitty legislation.

But it is hard to equate security required by airlines/gov to unnecessary medical procedures required by the gov in order to get a completely legal medical procedure.

I get the feeling you're male? Sorry if I'm wrong but this would be the equivalent of forcing men to get a colonoscopy for Viagra. It's not necessary at all. The transvaginal is very invasive but even the transabdominal shouldn't be required as its just not medically necessary for the procedure. There's no way these laws are constitutional or legal. No way.

Also in Ohio, they're giving doctors a required script that links abortion to cancer (lies) and other misleading or bs things.

Let me say that again.

They are requiring doctors to LIE to women seeking abortions.

It's another way to make it more costly as well, which also closes off access to some people, as they can't afford it and don't have coverage for it.


Pretty good analogy on the invasiveness too. That wasn't the part I was getting at (not trying to draw a moral parallel, just describing how the court would 'clinically' view it).

I suppose the way I phrased it sounded callous or dismissive, I did not intend it so. I was actually not trying to touch on that aspect of it at all. Just the 'mandatory requirements' aspect which has tons of uncomfortable precedent..

I am not making a moral equivalence between the two. They are orders of magnitude different in invasiveness.

That doesn't change the technical precedent, as it would be viewed by a court. Especially a right-leaning court.

sounded a bit.... callous at best.

.....which makes Walker a rapist...period! How creepy that is.

I cannot imagine this kind of law being passed on men without a riot taking place.

Why are women voting for these men?

So whats the point?

Often many women are voting for these asses.
However, to return to the topic, if it fits the definition of rape, then someone needs to sue.

they are NOT men!

***** Stand with Texas Women - Rally at Texas Capitol = LiveBlog *****
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023139797

But still... Men would riot.

And I think a lot of women don't realize what's being passed into law. And they may not realize it until their health clinic closes or they can't get an abortion or even birth control. The Ohio laws are particularly bad as they redefine life as starting when sperm meets egg meaning some birth control would technically be considered abortion.

Keep Republicans Out of Vaginas.

goddammit, the CONservative movement is sick.

that doesn't mean that won't happen in the future, but as of now there aren't any. Should one pass, it would be immediately challenged by PP, the ACLU or the Center for Reproductive Rights- or 2 of those organizations or all three- in Federal Court. An injunction would be issued. And such laws would almost certainly be overturned by a Federal Court. Lawmakers know this. Even repuke nutcase lawmakers. That's one major reason that both Virginia and Wisconsin backed away from any such mandate. Another big reason is that the public, may or may not see TV ultrasounds as rape but they do it as overly intrusive on the part of the state.

But as I said before, they are requiring transvaginal ultrasound even if it doesn't say those words specifically if they require the woman to see the embryo or fetus before an abortion. This can't be seen with a traditional ultrasound early in pregnancy when the vast majority of abortions are performed.

medical procedures are wrong, but you're wrong about the requirement.

You're right that the law doesn't say they must have a transvaginal ultrasound in those words. But the law as I read it at your link, says the woman must SEE the fetus. From your link:

The law requires medical providers to display the ultrasound images “so that the pregnant woman may view them” before she undergoes a procedure. She must be given a medical description of the images, as well as the dimensions of the fetus and a description of external features or internal organs that are present. The woman also must be provided a means to see any heartbeat, according to the law.

This is the Wisconsin language:

Section 8. 253.10 (3g) of the statutes is created to read:

253.10 (3g)Performance of ultrasound. (a) Except as provided under sub. (3m) and except in a medical emergency and before a person may perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion, or any physician requested by the pregnant woman, shall do all of the following, or shall arrange for a person who is qualified to perform an ultrasound to do all of the following:

1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses after the options have been explained to her. A facility that offers ultrasounds at no cost to satisfy the requirements of this subsection shall have available transducers to perform both transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds.

2. Provide a simultaneous oral explanation to the pregnant woman during the ultrasound of what the ultrasound is depicting, including the presence and location of the unborn child within the uterus, the number of unborn children, and the occurrence of the death of an unborn child, if such a death has occurred.

3. Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them.

4. Provide to the pregnant woman a medical description of the ultrasound images, including the dimensions of the unborn child and a description of any external features and internal organs that are present and viewable on the image.

5. Provide a means for the pregnant woman to visualize any fetal heartbeat, if a heartbeat is detectable by the ultrasound transducer type chosen by the woman under subd. 1., and provide to the pregnant woman, in a manner understandable to a layperson, a simultaneous oral explanation.

(b) No person may require a pregnant woman to view the ultrasound images that are required to be displayed for and reviewed with her or to visualize any fetal heartbeat. No person, including the pregnant woman, may be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman declines to view the displayed ultrasound images or to visualize any fetal heartbeat.

As I've already explained, requirements 2, 3 and 4 above can't be met with a transabdominal ultrasound early in pregnancy when most abortions are performed. Therefore the wording about the woman having a choice in part 1 is total bullshit.

Please read them and explain to me how a woman can choose a form of ultrasound that can't "see" the fetus (or even embryo) in early pregnancy.

They are specifically wording these laws to pretend they're giving a choice (either of which is completely unnecessary anyway) but in reality to meet the requirements they can only get a transvaginal.

and abdominal ones don't work before a ways into the pregnancy, so if you want an abortion before 10 to 12 weeks or so, you are required to have a transvaginal ultrasound.

If a fetal image is required early on in a pregnancy; it is impossible to get that without a vaginal probe.

Mandating an ultrasound early on in a pregnancy mandates a vaginal probe.

to these perverts. Their wives are as sick as the perverts. I can't understand a group of men deciding anything about a woman's reproductive decisions. I honestly think these men need mental evaluations, because this just isn't right. It's some kind of moral, religious delusion that they have an obligation to protect women who can't make their own decisions. I'm just getting so sick of stupid.

obtained, if not this would be illegal under the Fourth Amendment.

I don't usually say much...because pictures say a thousand words...

And the harassment of women seeing medical attention or information by the anti-choice zealots fits the definition of Terrorism and you know what; neither the anti-choice zealots nor the laws they pass will be called Rape or Terrorists. Why you ask? Because the GOP base and some in the Democratic Party support the Terrorism and Rape of Women. Too much money involved to do anything at all to them because as we all know only non-Christians can be terrorists in America.

was changed to "needs".

K and R for the message.

n/t

and it was very uncomfortable and invasive. Nothing like the painless and simple abdominal ultrasounds that I've had also.

It was unpleasant and I had terrible cramping afterward.

his ass followed by having a catheter strategically inserted in his person?

Bastard!

THAT is what it is. State sanctioned rape.