Response to "Government Rape" : Preliminary procedures

Every day, throughout the state, and all over the country, people undergo all kinds of medical procedures. To have these procedures done, a preliminary procedure is performed to eliminate potential risks and surprises.

This basic standard of care is rarely questioned, even if it is sometimes uncomfortable or unwanted. It comes down to this: If you consent to the actual procedure or surgery, you consent to all the preliminary care that goes along with it.

The new Virginia legislation regarding ultrasounds is no different. Many abortion providers already perform transabdominal ultrasounds and/or transvaginal ultrasounds as a standard procedure before performing abortions. The original version of the bill (which can be read in full online at Virginia's Legislative Information System) does not specify what kind of ultrasound is to be performed.

The original bill stated: "Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least two hours before the performance of an abortion, a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community."

As Mr. Doreste said, because the transabdominal ultrasound often does not produce good images in the early weeks of pregnancy, it is a relatively standard practice to perform the transvaginal ultrasound. The original bill is not all that ridiculous.

The bill, in either form, will have a two-fold impact. First, it will increase safety for women who have abortions. Second, it will deter some women from having them. Seeing an ultrasound image is often the first time a woman forms an emotional connection with the baby she is carrying, because it is the first time she is able to see what is happening inside of her.

This ultrasound allows her to see what she will be aborting, which is essential to the idea of informed consent, the primary purpose of the bill. It is with this second impact that I believe most people who oppose this bill take issue -- informed consent -- and for some reason won't just come out and say so. Instead, the bill's opponents compare one of the most basic medical procedures to rape. It's curious that pro-choicers (who so often claim to be advocates for women's health and rights) are fighting a bill that will increase women's safety and knowledge about the decisions they are making and will deter some women from having abortions.

If pro-choice delegates (and private citizens including Doreste) simply said that they opposed the bill, because it would most likely result in fewer abortions instead of flippantly comparing legitimate medical procedures to rape, then maybe there could be a real debate about the pros and cons of this bill.

The fact is that when a woman has an abortion, she is consenting to have a vacuum machine inserted through her vagina into her cervix (suction aspiration abortions account for the vast majority of abortions performed, although most other forms of abortion also require vaginal penetration). So claiming that having an ultrasound probe in her vagina first is "akin to rape" (as Del. Charniele Herring did) just doesn't make sense.