Having an ultrasound is now considered rape, according to the latest talking points from the largest abortion chain in the nation, Planned Parenthood, over the controversy about the Virginia ultrasound bill.
If this sounds illogical and absurd, that’s because it is.
In a 2003 study of Planned Parenthood and other independently owned abortion facilities, 99 percent of these clinics admitted that they either “always” or “sometimes” perform an ultrasound in association with a surgical abortion. Further, it was stated that vaginal ultrasounds were “always” performed before the early surgical abortion at 83 percent of these sites, 16 percent “under certain conditions,” and only 1 percent “never” did them.
Additionally, the study revealed that after an abortion was performed, vaginal ultrasounds were also “always” performed at 26 percent of these sites, “under certain conditions” at 66 percent of these sites, and “never” at 8 percent.
Planned Parenthood even admits they do ultrasounds before an abortion: “That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”
Requiring an ultrasound to take place before an abortion is performed makes sense since it ensures that the mother is actually pregnant, determines the age and size of the baby, and aids in determining the location of the unborn child for either the vacuum machine or a needle used to end its life, if in fact a surgical abortion is decided upon. And in many abortion procedures, ultrasounds are used during the surgical abortion to ensure that the abortionist doesn’t physically harm the mother while they dismember the unborn child.
Abortion clinics do ultrasounds, but many don’t tell women what’s on the screen — their living baby.
Pro-choice advocates — rather than asking questions about how to ensure that abortion is “safer” for mothers and whether or not women are fully informed about the development of their child before they make the most irrevocable decision in their lifetime — are resorting to disrespecting actual rape victims and utilizing silly scare tactics.
If a woman has decided to undergo a surgical abortion, this decision requires an abortionist to force instruments into her vagina in order to rid the woman of her child. Unfortunately that’s part of the package you get with abortion. How is this any less invasive than the ultrasound?
After decades of legal abortion and scientific studies done on when life begins and the age at which unborn babies feel pain, the pro-choice advocates and lobbyists still cling to outdated, untrue, and frankly ridiculous lies to convince women that abortion is not the taking of their child’s life.
It’s about time that women be told what abortion really is. Ultrasounds can make abortion “more emotionally difficult,” but is it really better to leave a mother uniformed that there is a little tiny human growing inside her? Are pro-choicers saying that women are too “emotionally weak” to handle the truth?
If performing a vaginal ultrasound is equal to the violence, invasiveness, and vulnerability of rape, then Planned Parenthood, which performs more than 200,000 abortions a year through procedures more invasive than a simple ultrasound, is without question the largest practitioner of rape in our country. Why isn’t anyone rushing to arrest Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood’s proud president, for raping millions of women and then profiting billions of dollars from it?
— Kristan Hawkins is the executive director of Students for Life of America.
So I'm guessing a garden-variety pelvic exam is rape, too?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe notion of consent seems never to have occurred to young Kristan...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's right.
Her logic: "T-V ultrasounds are sometimes medically necessary, and in many cases women (in conjunction with their doctors) consent to have an ultrasound done before having an abortion. Therefore, it's OK for the state to mandate that all women have this procedure done as a prerequisite for abortion."
Why stop there? Let's try some other ones:
"It's common for a doctor to do a digital rectal exam before removing polyps. Therefore, let's pass a law stating that it's illegal to operate for polyps without the doctor first putting his finger you-know-where."
"It's common for a doctor to shave a patient's head before doing brain surgery. Therefore let's pass a law making it a crime to do brain surgery without first removing every wisp of hair from the person's head."
"It's common for a doctor to test for STDs before giving a man a vasectomy. Therefore let's pass a law mandating that you must have your urethra swabbed before you're allowed to have a vasectomy."
It's ludicrous and insulting to assume that because something is common medical practice, it's OK for the state government to pass a law micromanaging the decisions of the doctor and patient.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I consent to a surgical procedure, there is invariably some physical examination that precedes it and I would assume that no one would consent to an invasive procedure but balk at consenting to a far less invasive preliminary examination.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd the main point of this post was that ultrasounds are NOT particularly invasive -- certainly not to the extent that this very inflammatory language suggests. Comparable to rape? Really? Not even comparable to the procedure that the patient is actively seeking.
I mean, this really sounds as if some people think it would be OK for a dentist to extract a molar but too invasive for the dentist to X-ray the patient's mouth before extracting the molar.
Remind me again where the consent is when the government mandates that a medical procedure must be done regardless of its medical necessity?
Please be specific, and while you're at it show me who's paying for this additional, not always necessary medical procedure. If it's the patient, how is it different from Obamacare?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for trying to mitigate my argument by attacking, by what you perceive to be, my young age.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne of the eye-opening aspects of this (aside from the fact that the slanders spread about the right are true) is watching the glibertarian sector fall over themselves to go along with this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf ultrasounds are a common, there's no need for the law. Doctors, based on their training, recommendations from medical specialty organizations, and evidence-based research, choose the methods best suited for their patients. That's what doctors do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConsent. That's the difference. In the surveys they talked about, the places that didn't 'always' do the ultrasounds probably didn't do them....when they didn't get consent. Also, most places DON'T do them before chemical abortions.
Consent is the difference between sex, a very good thing, and rape, a very bad thing. Likewise there is a big difference between a medical procedure decided on by a woman and her doctor, and a medical procedure required by the command of a clueless legislature, who doesn't even know the details of the procedure they are mandating.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"outdated, untrue, and frankly ridiculous" are words some would apply equally to religious doctrine that wants to assume control of women's bodies by using the government as enforcer of social policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree, it truly is outdated, untrue and frankly ridiculous that statist religious doctrine wants to assume control and dismemberment of unborn women's bodies by using the government as enforcer of statist social policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrank, how can you be against the government as enforcer of social policy? Surely you are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems to me like the post author managed to make her case pretty effectively without once resorting to religious authorities. But I can understand why you'd want to pretend that was the topic. It's easier that way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy not just go for the full Onion and require women to name the baby and paint a nursery before getting an abortion?
"New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion"
External Link
New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConsent, honey. The word you're looking for is "consent."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed, AndyS.
What is funny is that a site which speaks so much of freedom from government has no problem with mandating an invasive procedure - not for medical reasons but for emotional and spiritual bullying and/or influencing. Almost like their position on "teh government is bad" only depends on the issue at hand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Are pro-choicers saying that women are too “emotionally weak” to handle the truth?"
No, we are saying that women are not so weak that they can't ask for an ultrasound if they want one.
Wouldn't a better piece of legislation be, "providers have to let those seeking abortions know that they have an option to have an ultrasound if they want it, and insurers that cover abortion have to cover the pre-abortion ultrasound if the woman wants one?"
What is wrong with something like that? Seems like a good compromise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What is wrong with something like that? Seems like a good compromise."
You apparently missed all the reasons this should be done as necessary precursor to the surgical procedure -- for safety.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(1) not all abortions at this stage are surgical;
(2) if it's done for safety, why does the woman have to look at it? she's not performing the procedure; and
(3) Have there been medical studies/testimony on it always being necessary? Did the VA legislature consider any actual medical testimony on the subject?
See, this is why these stupid rules tinkering around the edges of the issue never work for the Right. OF COURSE ITS ABOUT DISSUADING ABORTION! Of course it is. That's why they want the woman to see the little baby. Why do they have to beat around the bush about it? Just come out and say you want to save the baby, and this will give one final chance for that to happen?
Or, how about challenging Roe V Wade in court? Get rid of the problem at the source. It's one of the weakest cases in Supreme Court history. At least then you would be returning the legislation of it's legality back to the states where it was before, and where it should be. This is the conservative position, instead of mandating state action, even for a righteous cause. Abortion should not be legal is the real pro-life position. Then set about making it illegal and stop tripping over yourselves by half-steps and half-measures.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse