Virginia House Passes, But Governor Rejects Mandatory Ultrasound Legislation

Illustration for article titled Virginia House Passes, But Governor Rejects Mandatory Ultrasound Legislation

Virginia's state government has angered vaginas and doctors alike with a proposal that would have required many women seeking abortions to undergo a mandatory vaginal ultrasound before undergoing the procedure. The Senate passed it, and today the General Assembly passed it with the provision that vaginal ultrasounds are optional. The governor had joined in expressing his wholehearted support of the measure. Until today.

Advertisement

Bob McDonnell, a Republican, had previously said that he'd unequivocally support the law that would have required ultrasounds for all women seeking abortions. But today, he announced that upon review, it actually was sort of gross that the state would mandate further invasive procedure on pregnant women. He said in a statement,

Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

How low are my expectations that McDonnell's statement made me want to jump out of my chair for joy and write a letter personally thanking the Governor for meeting minimum standards for how humans should approach governing other humans?

Dear Mr. Governor, Thank you for seeing me as a human being, from the bottom of my vacant uterus...

According to ThinkProgress, McDonnell's previous position of unwavering support for the bill seemed a little hypocritical in light of the fact that he was opposed to TSA pat downs in airports, and this is a little more invasive than having some guy's hand lightly brush your butt region.

But just because public outcry over this measure has caused Virginia's governor to back down doesn't mean that lawmakers in other states have learned their lesson. Alabama and Pennsylvania are currently considering similar ultrasound requirements. And there's still that pesky bill that passed out of committee that would allow a woman's spouse (or underage girl's parents) to get a court injunction to block her from having an abortion by accusing her of being motivated to terminate her pregnancy by racism or sexism. In the year 2012. We've come a long way, baby.

Advertisement

Virginia Governor backs off 'state sponsored rape' ultrasound bill, promises to 'review' measure [Think Progress]

DISCUSSION

ba-stet-old
ba.stet

I'm glad for the governor's change on this... but as far as the other point mentioned toward the end of this blog,

if the father of a child is against abortion in my opinion, he has the right to protect the life of his seed AS LONG AS he takes full custody from the point of his objection to the procedure and the mother signs a document giving up her rights as a parent (if she really wanted to abort)

THINK ABOUT IT BEFORE U REPLY TO ME... this is only logical...

both parents have rights, and unless it was rape, the mother consented to unprotected sex... therefore, the father has rights to protect his unborn child...

AS A PARENT, i also believe it is my right to object to my daughter having an abortion... she is my child and i have to protect her from harm.

i would want to be next to her every step of the way in making the decision to either choose abortion or to keep the baby.