Home > General, Reproductive Rights, Va Politics, Women's Issues > Ultra-sounds: Let’s point out the worthless dogs

Ultra-sounds: Let’s point out the worthless dogs

January 17th, 2013

ultra soundSenator Ralph Northam introduced a bill in the Virginia Senate to give legislators the opportunity to redeem themselves and to remove Virginia from the embarrassment list.  His efforts failed.  It was last year during the legislative session that Virginia became the laughing stock of the nation, especially late at night because of their governor, Governor Ultra-Sound.

In all, the members of the Senate Health and Education Committee, had 3 reproductive rights bills to consider.  Only 1 made it out of committee.  2 were staked  by an 8-7 Republican vote.

According to the Huffingtonpost.com:

A Republican-controlled committee in the Virginia State Senate voted 8-7 on Thursday to block Democrats’ efforts to repeal a new mandatory ultrasound law and a set of regulations that could shut down many abortion clinics in the state. The committee also voted down a new anti-abortion bill that would have prevented Medicaid from paying for low-income women’s abortions in cases where there is a severe fetal anomaly.

Virginia Republicans attracted national criticism in early 2012 when they proposed a bill requiring women to undergo invasive, medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound procedures before having an abortion. Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) later helped Republicans revise the bill to require only external, “jelly-on-the-belly” procedures, and he signed that version into law.

State Sen. Ralph Northam (D), the only physician in the senate, proposed a bill that would repeal the mandatory ultrasound law because he says it violates the privacy and sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. “I am giving you the opportunity to right the wrong committed last year,” he told committee members on Thursday.

The Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia American College of Obstetricians testified in favor of repealing the ultrasound bill, echoing Northam’s concerns.

As it turns out, the only purpose the ultra-sound will serve is to make abortion  even more expensive for those undergoing the procedure.  The TRAP laws will remain and abortion clinics will be the only outpatient services that must comply with hospital-like regulations.  This situation invites an future lawsuit.

Let’s see who the worthless dogs are who voted to keep these absurd laws:  Look for an R.  You will find the votes affirming ultra sound and TARP rules:

  • Sen. Steve Martin (R-Chesterfield) Chair
  • Sen. George Barker (D-Alexandria)
  • Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg)
  • Sen. Harry Blevins (R-Chesapeake)
  • Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson)
  • Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg)
  • Sen. Janet Howell (D-Reston)
  • Sen. Mamie Locke (D-Hampton)
  • Sen. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth)
  • Sen. Jeff McWaters (R-Virginia Beach)
  • Sen. John Miller (D-Newport News)
  • Sen. Ralph Northam (D-Norfolk)
  • Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Springfield)
  • Del. Beverly Sherwood (R-Winchester)
  • Sen. Ralph Smith (R-Roanoke)

A slight note of semi-redemption goes to Sen. Harry Blevins.  He did cross over and vote no to a bill that would cut medicaid to women with severe fetal anomaly.

Hopefully those senators are embarrassed for their blatant attempt to cause further hardship to the women of Virginia.

 

Note:  Sen. Dick Black is also a PWC senator.

 

 

  1. Elena
    January 18th, 2013 at 07:04 | #1

    OK, so THIS issue, non public safety the republicans are perfectly fine getting so personal, its inside a woman’s vagina, but guns carte blanche are perfectly fine?! Any new regulation is an assualt on THIER personal rights?!

    I never knew my vagina was such a personal threat to society that it could garner such a cohesive response from the republican party.

    • January 18th, 2013 at 07:26 | #2

      Elena, your V-rights just aren’t even close to being as important as their G-rights, symbolically or in reality.

  2. January 18th, 2013 at 07:34 | #3

    I just found out that the VA govt is more in your v-rights than you even thought. Currently there is a a 30 day waiting period for permanent sterilization if you are over 18 and don’t have children via nature or adoption. Holy cow. That is really invasive.

    There is now a move to repeal that law. I would hope so!

    The bill, sponsored by a Democrat, sailed through committee.

    http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/house-committee-backs-bill-striking-waiting-period-for-sterilization/article_b1c60228-60b9-11e2-a8fd-0019bb30f31a.html

  3. January 18th, 2013 at 11:06 | #4

    republicans

    There are also “pro-choice” DEMOCRAT, even liberal, gun owners that support the 2nd.

    • January 18th, 2013 at 15:11 | #5

      I supprt the 2nd…but that’s a sound bite. I don’t give it unlimited support.

  4. punchak
    January 18th, 2013 at 12:12 | #6

    Please, please, do not elect Cuccinelli !!
    The 19th Amendment, women’s right to vote, was passed by Congress in 1919.
    Virginia ratified the Amendment in 1952 – yes, 1952!
    In 1985 Mary Sue Terry was the first Virginia woman to hold statewide office, the very one that is now held by Cuccinelli.
    Virginia was also one of the last states to ratify the Civil Rights bill, having closed public schools rather than integrated leaving hundreds of black children without an education.

    Virginia is not on the cusp, that’s for sure.

  5. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 12:46 | #7

    @Moon-howler

    I would support overturning this law. While it is the most extreme form of contraception (which I do not oppose), it is a 100% prevention against a future abortion. Why should there be a statutory waiting period?

  6. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 12:48 | #8

    Moon-howler :Elena, your V-rights just aren’t even close to being as important as their G-rights, symbolically or in reality.

    Ok…I want this on the record. So the next time I compare and contrast gun-rights and reproductive rights, I won’t get chastised to “stay on topic”?

  7. January 18th, 2013 at 14:50 | #9
  8. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 15:39 | #10

    Moon-howler :I auppoer the 2nd…but that’s a sound bite. I don’t give it unlimited support.

    Is it because you believe we have a fundamental right to keep a gun to defend against criminals, or to secure our rights to hunt Bambi and Daffy? Or do you support the 2nd Ammendment for the same reasons John Adams and George Mason did?

    • January 18th, 2013 at 20:55 | #11

      Jefferson and Madison. My home-boys.

      I drank too much Albemarle and Louisa County kool aid. The red mud got into the drinking water.

      Actually I think the 2nd amendment meant something different to each of the representatives, depending on their region. If it was to be unambiguous, we wouldn’t still be arguing about it 200+ years later.

  9. BSinVA
    January 18th, 2013 at 16:16 | #12

    @ Steve “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
    –John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

    Exactly what did John mean??

  10. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 16:25 | #13

    @BSinVA
    He meant that although individuals should be free to keep and bear arms, they need be subject to the rule of law, so that anarchy, which is at the ultimate other end of the spectrum from Tyranny, would not result. In essence, just because I own a gun, doesn’t give me the right to use it, every time I disagree with an individual, or government.

  11. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 16:27 | #14

    @BS [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…
    —George Mason

  12. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 16:29 | #15

    @ BS: “We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
    —Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright,

  13. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 16:32 | #16

    Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops… – Noah Webster

  14. BSinVA
    January 18th, 2013 at 16:53 | #17

    OK back to John Adams. My read is that we should have the right to protect ourselves and , after that, the right to use our arms as allowed by law. Otherwise it constitutes the dissolution of the government, which Adams was against. Is that how you see it?

  15. Censored bybvbl
    January 18th, 2013 at 17:02 | #18

    @Steve Thomas

    Precisely who would form this militia? And how? If Texas wants to secede, can its residents fight the feds with weaponry in order to do so? How are potential rebellions by the states handled? How about rebellions against the states or localities? I doubt that there would be a dearth of volunteers if the country were invaded, but who’s to say when history demands a rebellion by Joe and Jane Doe? How would this ever be viewed as anything other than a rebellion by cult-like groups? Who’s to say it isn’t treasonous? No one spells out any details about this “militia” and its possible use. Do governors decide to call up one? Do only Republican governors get to call up one? Why would it be any different than the national guard?

  16. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 17:06 | #19

    BSinVA :OK back to John Adams. My read is that we should have the right to protect ourselves and , after that, the right to use our arms as allowed by law. Otherwise it constitutes the dissolution of the government, which Adams was against. Is that how you see it?

    If the dissolution is for anything other than to throw off another tyrant (which he was in favor of), then it is the work of anarchists. He didn’t want us frequently rebelling and overthrowing our government whenever it suited us. So, I would agree with your interpretation for the most part.

  17. BSinVA
    January 18th, 2013 at 17:11 | #20

    As I dig further into this subject, I saw that one of the reasons that the founding fathers thought the right to bear arms was prudent was to stop slave rebellions (I’m not saying nothing – you know what I’m saying???). None the less and I don’t want to put words into Moon’s postings, but I gleaned that Moon was totally in favor of gun ownership but not the private ownership of all gun types or the ownership of guns by people who may not be able to fulfill their responsibilities that come with gun ownership. I would like us to focus in on the President’s proposals.. Nowhere did I read that he was proposing to disarm the public. Am I wrong about that?

  18. BSinVA
    January 18th, 2013 at 17:13 | #21

    So Moon, do you support the second amendment as John Adams did as Steve and I figured out? @Steve Thomas

    • January 18th, 2013 at 21:38 | #22

      I don’t know, BS I am drinking my dinner at the moment and answering your question requires too much thought.

  19. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 17:13 | #23

    @Censored bybvbl
    “Why would it be any different than the national guard?”

    Please read the militia act of 1903 (also known as the Dick Act), which codified the diferences betweenStanding Armed Forces, the “Organized Milita” (Later recognized as the national gaurd), and the “unorganized militia” . Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.

  20. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 17:17 | #25

    But back to the original Non-2nd Ammendment part of the thread. I wouldn’t object if the TVUS law were repealed. I’m not really sure it accomplishes what the patrons intended (reduce abortions), I am sure it has cause much more discontent. Wasn’t a fan of it from the begining.

    • January 18th, 2013 at 21:45 | #26

      I don’t think it will reduce the number of abortions at all, Steve. I agree. I think it will place an undue burden on women seeking one and they will have to scrounge more money and find out nothing. It is also demeaning someone at what is probably a low point in their life.

      In Northern VA it will drive people to Maryland and DC. Other women down state will not be as fortunate.

      It’s a very disingenuous law.

  21. Steve Thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 17:24 | #27

    @BSinVA
    He’s proposing to ban certain classes of weapons based on purely cosmetic characteristics, which makes this arbitrary. I agree with a ban on fully-automatic weapons, and true modern military grade weapons. There is a functional difference between the M16A1 &A2 I carried throughout my enlisted service, which were both automatics, and the AR-15 currently legal for me to purchase and own today, which is semi-auto. Few are saying their rights are being infringed because they haven’t been able to buy a machine-gun since 1935.

    • January 18th, 2013 at 21:47 | #28

      Was that the Tommy gun? Back when dirt was forming on the earth and when I was a girl, all the boys were fascinated with Tommy guns and drew them and had toy ones. I think it went back to the Gangster/booze running period in American history.

  22. BSinVA
    January 18th, 2013 at 17:36 | #29

    Actually he is proposing the reimposition of the older assault weapons ban which, as you said, defined assault weapons in cosmetic terms. Let’s help our Congress persons right now…how would you define “fully automatic” and “true modern military grade weapons”? So far, you and I are in agreement.

  23. January 18th, 2013 at 17:38 | #31

    @Steve Thomas

    I agree with a ban on fully-automatic weapons, and true modern military grade weapons.

    Are you in favor of a ban…or the status quo, in which one CAN own an automatic weapon, with a background check, a tax, and some other regulations?

  24. BSinVA
    January 18th, 2013 at 19:28 | #32

    Cargo: How would you define what you are agreeing to restrict… fully-automatic weapons and true modern military grade weapons ?

  25. January 18th, 2013 at 22:23 | #33

    @Steve Thomas

    Totally agree, Steve. I think it is going to be repealed without a hitch.

    Adults are certainly welcome to be sterilized without nanny state involvement, in my book. You are right, fewer abortions, fewer unwanted pregnancies.

    I also think this might be the time to throw in, married adults should not have to have the “consent” of a spouse. Your own reproduction (whether you are male or female) is your own, not that of your spouse. In a perfect world, it would be discussed, not mandated.

    When Mr. Howler went under the knife (outpatient, right across the street from THE clinic) I had to sign my consent. How stupid is that?

  26. January 18th, 2013 at 22:25 | #34

    @BSinVA

    I think it is funny we are discussing gun rights and reproductive rights on the same thread.

    What I find ironic is that 2A rights are sacrosanct and that reproductive rights have to be scratched out on a daily basis.

    Now why is that?

  27. steve thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 22:55 | #35

    @BSinVA

    BSinVA :
    Actually he is proposing the reimposition of the older assault weapons ban which, as you said, defined assault weapons in cosmetic terms. Let’s help our Congress persons right now…how would you define “fully automatic” and “true modern military grade weapons”? So far, you and I are in agreement.

    fully automatic is a recognized standard term meaning multiple cycles of the operation each te the trigger is pulled. if more than a single round is discharged with each pull of the trigger, the gun is full auto. military grade firearm is capable of fully automatic operation
    the M-16 A2 service rifle is modern military grade, because it has this characteristic
    the AR-15 is not military grade, because it is not fully automatic.

  28. steve thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 22:58 | #36

    Moon-howler :
    @BSinVA
    I think it is funny we are discussing gun rights and reproductive rights on the same thread.
    What I find ironic is that 2A rights are sacrosanct and that reproductive rights have to be scratched out on a daily basis.
    Now why is that?

    because the had to be inferred from a right to privacy, whereas the 2A was expressed in the BOR

    • January 19th, 2013 at 01:03 | #37

      Regardless of origin, both have been ruled on by the Supremes and therefore are codified.

  29. steve thomas
    January 18th, 2013 at 23:05 | #38

    Cargosquid :
    @Steve Thomas
    I agree with a ban on fully-automatic weapons, and true modern military grade weapons.
    Are you in favor of a ban…or the status quo, in which one CAN own an automatic weapon, with a background check, a tax, and some other regulations?

    @Cargosquid
    I Favor the status quo
    class V licensees are the most regulated, frequently background checked, responsible folks out there

  30. punchak
    January 18th, 2013 at 23:46 | #39

    @Moon-howler
    Not funny/strange at all. After all, Rush said that abortions should be done
    with a gun. / Yes, he did. I heard him.

  31. Lady Emma
    January 19th, 2013 at 08:22 | #40

    Why do so many people care what Rush says? No wonder the guy’s so rich.

    • January 19th, 2013 at 09:01 | #41

      @Emma

      Because he is loud and stupid. Why do we care what any moron says when they are so objectionable and have so many followers? Why did we care what Jane Fonda said?

  32. steve thomas
    January 19th, 2013 at 09:44 | #42

    Moon-howler :
    Regardless of origin, both have been ruled on by the Supremes and therefore are codified.

    My comment was offered as a possible explanation of why the perception exists, and not a justification for attacks on either. I would also add that the 2A has been part of the BOR since the founding of the Republic, and has been examined by the various courts for over 2 centuries. R v. Wade was decided in 1973. Much shorter history of case law.

    • January 19th, 2013 at 11:43 | #43

      @Steve, thats a good point.

      There are those who would argue that Roe has always been there but just hadn’t been codified. I guess i don’t see that that makes a difference.

  33. Elena
    January 19th, 2013 at 10:41 | #44

    Yes, womens rights have been a long time coming in this nation, beginning with the 19th amendment not even a century ago.

  34. Elena
    January 19th, 2013 at 10:45 | #45

    Unlike reproductive rights, the ability to buy a gun is incredibly easy. If all gun shops were closed down by expanisve regulations in the state of VA, you would see such an uproar, but women being denied access to a legal procedure is perfectly fine for all these constituionalists. Talk to the women around the world who are denied access to control the most basic of human rights, their own bodies, and one will hear about real government intrusion.

    • January 19th, 2013 at 11:49 | #46

      The “rules” on guns were already on the books long before women could even vote. Guns had rights before my grandmother.

      Shrug.

      I think if people saw the connection between own’s personal control over their own reproduction and their ability to control their own destiny, perhaps reproductive rights would become as sacrosanct as gun rights.

  35. January 19th, 2013 at 12:00 | #47

    I have a thread in the ‘back room’ ready to go on Jan. 22 for Roe v. Wade’s 40th birthday.

    In it is a demographic stating that the 2 age groups that are the most pro choice are the boomers and the 18-30 years old. It makes perfect sense why. Obvious, the youger set would be the people more in need of abortion services. The problem is, many youngsters don’t recognize Roe v. Wade. I think they assume abortion rights and Contraception rights (Griswold) have always been there for them.

    On the other hand, the boomers know from experience what it was like to live in a world where college grad women could teach, nurse, take care of books or head to the secretarial pool. You simply could not work in a ‘man’s world. You might become pregnant and the company would have wasted its investment in you.

    Boomers also remember the days before abortion was legal. I think everyone knows of someone who has a horror story to tell before 1973. I know of several someones.

    One must never forget that abortion rights are very much tied to those same rights that guarantee us a right to contraception. Remember some of the discussion during 2012. Lurking right below the murky surface was an assault on birth control.

  36. January 19th, 2013 at 12:06 | #48

    For those who don’t like government intrusion into their business, how does it feel to know that some Virginia women will take the entire General Assembly into the examing room with them should they need reproductive care.

    It doesn’t get more personal than a a transvaginal ultra-sound which, by the way, at the stage when most women get abortions, is the only ultra-sound that will show up much of anything.

    Meanwhile, ker-ching ker ching. Undue burden. I hope gun owners won’t mind taxes on gun sales and ammo….its sort of like paying for a medical procedure you don’t need.

  37. Pat.Herve
    January 20th, 2013 at 07:00 | #49

    and this is another example of the “unneeded regulation” sound byte, so often spouted by those in the GOP – they do not regulation, unless it is their own regulation. A bunch of hypocrites.

    • January 20th, 2013 at 11:46 | #50

      Totally agree! Perfect example of the their hypocrisy.

      It makes it even worse that it is an unfunded medical mandate.

Comments are closed.