Doesn't Virginia's abortion law violate the new Federal definition of rape?

[rocktivity]

Last edited Tue Feb 24, 2015, 02:15 AM - Edit history (1)

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
link

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...
[div style="text-align:center"]

(T)he law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason...Requiring a doctor to commit such an act, especially when medically unnecessary, and to submit to an arbitrary waiting period, is to demand an abrogation of medical ethics, if not common decency...
link

Does the Virginia abortion law involve:

Penetration? Check.

A body part or object? The transvaginal probe definitely qualifies as an object.

The consent of the victim? Not only is the victim's consent not required, the doctor's consent isn't, either!

That means Virginia's abortion law is automatically and totally unconstitutional on its face -- if you'll pardon the expression...


rocktivity

[Happyhippychick]

1. Yes. Which is why my blood has been boiling since this happened.

[annabanana]

2. No doubt about it. . . . n/t

[zbdent]

3. Excellent point!!!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. Rape by instrumentality.

[COLGATE4]

5. No, because they're extorting her consent.

If you want the abortion you have to give permission for the ultrasound. Otherwise, they don't do it. This may well be unconstitutional but we'll have to wait for it to get to the USSCt. And even then, I'm not prepared to bet that they will in fact find it to be an 'unreasonable burden' on womens' rights.

[rocktivity]

6. Great argument! The law intentionally makes consent a moot issue

Last edited Tue Feb 24, 2015, 02:15 PM - Edit history (7)

and since you can't get an abortion unless you have an object penetrate you in a perfectly needless procedure, you can also argue that it's a form of coercion, psychological torture or harassment -- not to mention practicing medicine without a license!


rocktivity

[CTyankee]

7. Is the VA chapter of the ACLU on this? Surely, they can figure out a way to present this to

a judge to get a TRO on this law...if this is a coercive measure that women have to submit to in order to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, particularly since it has no basis in medical practice and can cause undue stress and humiliation in women at the behest of the state...

[ShadowLiberal]

8. Yep, which by their logic means most rape isn't rape if the woman was threatened first

Under that kind of republican logic that the woman has to consent to such a probe to get the abortion it also means most rape isn't really rape.

You see, all a rapist has to do to avoid breaking the law is bring a weapon with them, and tell the woman if she doesn't have sex with him that he'll kill her. That way it's 'consensual' and perfectly legal, after all, the rapist didn't have to kill her like he threatened to!

[LiberalAndProud]

9. And they'll be billed for the experience.

[jtuck004]

10. Hey, maybe this is a jobs ploy? They could privatize it, contract it out to, say, prisons,

people who have experience with rape.

I wonder how many of these legislators have rape fantasies? Maybe this is a way to keep them out of prison - they can rape women vicariously.

Maybe they could change the state motto to "Virginia. Where women are treated like cattle".

I don't understand why there are not thousands of men and women around the capital. They really want to teach their kids this is ok?