Politics

Your daily outrage: TX Sonogram Law compared to rape

A panel from one of Garry Trudeau's recent "Doonesbury" comic strips.

I don’t know about all of you, but ever since the Sonogram Law was put into effect here in Texas, I’ve been breathlessly waiting to hear what “Doonesbury” comic strip author Garry Trudeau has to say about it. It seems my long wait is finally over.

I was shocked to find that Trudeau is against the law, calling it “lunacy.” Really? You mean the guy who “fell for a report by the fictional ‘Lovenstein Institute‘ that stated that President George W. Bush had the lowest IQ (91) of any president in the past 50 years, and that former president Bill Clinton’s IQ was exactly twice that of Bush?” [Source: Wikipedia.]

But that guy seems so so intelligent and even-handed!

Anyway, yeah, Trudeau is all over the big mean sonogram law, prompting some of the few papers who haven’t moved ”Doonesbury” from the comics to the op-ed page to start doing so.

But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he’s treating the subject with thoughtfulness and honesty.

Or, you know, not. From The Washington Post:

The comic strips feature a woman who goes to an abortion clinic and is confronted by several people who suggest she should be ashamed. Among them is a doctor who reads a script on behalf of Texas Gov. Rick Perry welcoming her to a “compulsory transvaginal exam,” and a middle-aged legislator who calls her a “slut.”

One panel equates the invasive procedure to rape and describes the device used to perform it as a “10-inch shaming wand.”

I hate to get all up in Trudeau’s face with annoying logic, but a woman who is really squeamish about having things put in her vagina should probably avoid the abortion clinic altogether, because a transvaginal probe is the most pleasant thing that’s going to happen to her lady parts in that building.

A woman who chooses an abortion is going to have a procedure that will involve using a laminaria stick or other equally invasive measures to dilate her cervix, after which a curette or a vacuum will be inserted so her fetus can be scraped or sucked out of her, or dismembered, then scraped or sucked out of her.

Well, that sounds like fun! Compared to that horrible, rapey ultrasound probe, all that dilation and suction and scraping sounds like a long, warm shampoo!

Give me a little bit of a break. As a woman, I am sick unto death of so-called feminists and women’s right activists turning women into victims, from Sandra Fluke whining that we need our big Catholic daddies to give us free birth control, to all the emotive horse crap about the vaginal ultrasound.

Don’t freak out and call CNN, but women who go to have abortions are going to have things put in their vaginas.

My favorite part of this whole uproar is Dr. Curtis Boyd, Dallas late-term abortionist extraordinaire, all over the press in the past week or so acting extremely upset about the shaming, harmful effects of the transvaginal probe.

This guy commits abortions, right here in my city, up to 24 weeks gestation. Think maybe he has an ulterior motive for not wanting his patients to see a sonogram image of their babies? Think it might be difficult to convince a woman “it’s not really a baby” when the “blob of tissue” is yawning and sucking its thumb?

Sorry, Boyd, but the simple fact that you make truckloads of money because you’re one of the monsters who doesn’t mind aborting viable babies disqualifies you from getting to weep about poor exploited women. What you do to women is the most exploitative, disgusting thing that’s ever been done to us. You use your instruments of death to invade our bodies and rip life out of our wombs for money. I’ll take a vaginal ultrasound every day of the week and twice on Sunday over what Boyd the murdering “doctor” does to women.

But of course this debate wouldn’t be anything without the celebrity-gossiping, Republican-hating, foul-mouthed fauxminists over at Jezebel chiming in. They call Curtis Boyd “incomparable” and the transvaginal ultrasound “pervy.” (What is the curette or the vacuum tube then? Scrapey? Suctiony? Murdery?)

I don’t really expect relevant input from a magazine featuring, all on the same day, the following headlines: “In Defense of Sluts,” “Guys Answer Hard Questions About Soft D***s,” and “What Type of Nipple Are You?” Hard-hitting stuff, ladies. Keep it comin’.

Meanwhile, let’s maybe give women the benefit of the doubt. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they probably know that, considering how the baby was made, an abortion is going to be a vaginally invasive procedure. In fact, so is birth. So if you’re super squeamish about strangers visiting that area, maybe keep everyone away from that area in the first place. Just a thought.

Let’s stop pretending like women are the victims of the Sonogram Law. Women are the victims of abortion, and so are their children. The Sonogram Law uses a simple, painless, harmless medical procedure to provide a woman with information about her pregnancy, so she cannot be lied to by abortionists about what her fetus truly is: a human child. Not the “products of conception,” not a “clump of cells.”

The truth is: the fauxminists and the anti-lifers are scared that women will see a child on that ultrasound screen, and decide not to kill it. The abortionists and their multi-billion dollar industry are scared of losing money. No one is really scared that a woman who comes in for an abortion is going to interpret a vaginal probe as rape, and a curette and vacuum tube as gentle ministrations.

This is all false. It’s false indignation about a false offense. The Sonogram Law is a wonderful, life-saving, informative, pro-woman informed consent law, and I’m proud we have it in Texas.

____________________________________________

Kristen Walker makes people mad on the Internet and sometimes tweets.

Live Action on Facebook
  • LoveTheLeast8

    An honest debate isn’t something pro-aborts are known for. They will use any argument no matter how true because they think the end (abortion on demand) justifies the means.

  • Destiny

    Seriously one of the best things you’ve ever written. Amazing.

  • Solntsye

    I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I have to wonder why all this talk about transvaginal ultrasounds? I never had anything other than just a plain old external, jelly-on-the-belly ultrasound with all three of my kids…and I could see them perfectly! Even my first one, and she was literally only 18 days after conception, but I could see her yolk sac and implantation clear as a bell…and this was 16 years ago, with lesser technology. I really have thought this threat of transvaginal ultrasounds has been nothing more than a scare tactic from those who support fetal murder.

    Keep in mind, many abortion clinics offer general anesthesia for the duration of the abortion (at least they do in the state where I live), so women would be completely unaware of themselves during the actual surgery…ergo, no realization of the rape aspects of abortion.

    I totally support a required ultrasound before an abortion, but just go with the regular external ultrasound…and require the woman to view it, as well as have a doctor unrelated to the abortion industry explain its findings while the ultrasound is taking place- in real time, if you will.

    • Jordan Elizabeth

      With the transvaginal, you can see the baby better, but wow! EIGHTEEN DAYS? That’s really fast.

      And yeah, it’s also a scare tactic. If it’s an early one, external ultrasounds won’t work as well as they could.

      And even if there’s “no realization” of it… it’s really not better to rape someone when they’re unconcious.

      • Solntsye

        Yep, she was only 18 days after her conception, and I highly doubt a transvaginal ultasound would have allowed us to see her better…she was only two weeks since her implantation, so not too far along in the development, but there she was! So I guess my opinion is this nonsense of transvaginal is just that- nonsense; the regular ultrasounds work fine. It’s literally just a ploy by medical practitioners for more money (I’m sure transvaginal ultrasounds cost more than the routine externals do), plus this whole thing can be used as a scare tactic to keep the pro-abortionists pushing women away from all ultrasounds, if they’re freaking out about the idea of being raped by an instrument.

        Oh I’m not saying it’s right to rape someone when they’re unconcious, but what I am saying is if the woman goes willingly for the abortion and is unconcious through it, she will not be able to see and be aware of exactly how much the abortion is so similar to rape. She misses how the horror of it relates directly to her, should she be out during it.

        • 12angry_men

          It seems like you are going off of your own assumptions here.  Regular ultrasounds do work just fine, but for pregnancies that are not very far along transvaginal ultrasounds typically are more accurate than regular ones.  And the beginning of your last paragraph kind of contradicts the sentences that follow after it. 

          • Solntsye

            I wouldn’t consider 18 days after conception as particularly far into a pregnancy. As I said, we could see her perfectly, although she wasn’t far enough along in her development to see much more than her amniotic sac and implantation site. A transvaginal ultrasound really wouldn’t have made such a phenominal difference, as we could see all we were going to be able to see with nothing more than a routine external ultrasound. So my impression of transvaginal ultrsounds are that they are a completely unnecessary waste of money that those who support fetal murder try to claim as the only way ultrasounds can be done, thereby causing this uproar of “rape”, when all that actually should be required is a regular extrenal ultrasound, with mandatory viewing by the mother, while a doctor explains the findings as the ultrasound is taking place.

            If the woman having the abortion is unconcious throughout the proceedure, she will not be awake during the proceedure. If she is not awake, she will not be cognizant of exactly how similar to rape an abortion is. Therefor, she may view the idea of a transvaginal ultrasound as rape, but not the abortion that she may very well be unconcious for. Regardless of its circumstances, rape in any form is absolutely wrong. The point I am making with regards to her being anesthetized is that she will not see the direct correlation of the physical similarities of rape and abortion

          • Solntsye

            I’m sorry, I keep having trouble with staying online today. I wanted to finish my thoughts, with my main points being: Transvaginal ultrasounds are unnecessary, but external ultrasounds with a doctors description of the findings should be mandatory. I suspect this whole idea of transvaginal ultrasounds only came from the pro-fetal murder side, and has been used as a ploy to stop any form of ultrasound from taking place (or any legal requirements to view them). And finally, explaining why women may equate a transvaginal ultrasound as rape, but not viewing an abortion as rape, as they may very well be unconscious through the abortion, but would not be for the ultrasound. Again, I’m certainly not saying rape is ever acceptable. I am only pointing out how some women may view the ultrasound as rape, but not the abortion, despite the similarities in the proceedure.

          • 12angry_men

            If the doctor is going to perform a transvaginal ultrasound, then the woman is going to know. In addition, I know you keep denying it but vaginal ultrasounds are more accurate. I really don’t know how much I can keep stressing this point. Here is just one article out of many stressing this point 
            http://pregnancy.about.com/od/ultrasounds/a/ultrasoundtest.htm
            It truly is wonderful you got to see such a clear picture of your baby so early on, but transvaginal ultrasounds are more accurate for early stages of pregnancy.

  • Oedipa Mossmoon

    The rape meme being used is a little abstract. I heard a much better phrase for it this morning on the radio. “Ritualized Humiliation”.

    • Elise77

       I don’t understand how it’s humiliating. I had to have a trans-vag ultrasound when pregnant with my youngest daughter, not because it was early in the gestation, but because they were getting a better look at her to rule out heart defects. I ended up having another one a few months later, after an OB/GYN intern literally didn’t know which end was up, and mistakenly diagnosed me with placenta previa and a breech baby. It’s JUST a MEDICAL PROCEDURE. (Isn’t that the line YOU guys love to trumpet? In this case, it’s TRUE!) I had the right to refuse it, but not if I wanted the services of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine specialist. Also, not if I wanted to remain under the care of my physician after the mis-diagnosis. They weren’t willing to assume the liability for my potentially bleeding to death and/or losing the baby if I did in fact have placenta previa and my daughter was breech. So the choice was to have the ultrasound or go elsewhere. I guess I was “shamed” into accepting the procedure…

      As far as it being “ritualized,” you might look up the definitions of the words “ritual” and “procedure” and compare them. So yeah, I guess it’s “ritualized.” Whatever. If you’re going to put your stocking-clad feet in stirrups and let a doctor crank and probe and poke and shove medical instruments in your lady bits, followed by the violent killing of your unborn child (let’s call it “ritualized infanticide”) then it doesn’t seem to me that a procedure that involves a narrow, flexible probe (considerably more narrow than the typical impregnating member) and sonic waves should be a problem for you.

  • 54him

    As an OB RN I’ve wondered why the transvag usg was so offensive but also why no one seems to be able to express this in the media. I think this should be brought out because this “akin to rape” thing is reall getting airtime!

  • fern78

    When I heard about that law and all  the folks freaking out and calling it rape- the first thing that came to mind was the one time I had to have one of those kinds of ultra sounds because my doc was checking my ovaries. Compared to the rest of the exam, it was the easiest part. (sorry if TMI, just – been there, done that.) I echo the sentiments of the article. That’s the least of your worries compared with the rest of the procedure.

  • Pingback: Planned Parenthood Caught in Deception Surrounding Ultrasounds

  • Pingback: Planned Parenthood Caught in Deception Surrounding Ultrasounds | Foundation Life

  • Sonia Charbonneau

    I don’t understand the controversy over transvaginal ultrsound use. Its use is standard in early pregnancy, particularly the first trimester. In early pregnancy, transvaginal is superior to transabdominal sonography, because it allows for more accurate measurements of the embryo/fetus/baby, and delivers better image clarity. As you progress into later stages of pregnancy, the transvaginal becomes less useful and physicians prefer transabdominal. An endovaginal ultrasound isn’t a punishment for women seeking abortions. It’s standard medical care. I had several of them with my pregnancies, and found them to be less objectionable than the discomfort associated with a PAP smear.