In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Anti-Choicers: Punishing Women with Non-Consensual Invasive Medical Procedures

Anti-choicers in Oklahoma again demonstrate how much they care about women: So much that if women want to terminate a pregnancy, they’ll be forced to undergo an ultrasound, whether they consent or not. Making women undergo an unnecessary medical procedure against their will is bad enough — especially when medical professionals do not recommend unnecessary ultrasounds, and when ultrasounds are expensive and add significant and totally unnecessary costs to the abortion. But the Oklahoma law is even worse:

Under the guise of obtaining informed patient consent, this new law requires doctors to withhold pregnancy termination until an ultrasound is performed. The law states that either an abdominal or vaginal ultrasound, whichever gives the best image of the fetus, must be done. Neither the patient nor the doctor can decide which type of ultrasound to use, and the patient cannot opt out of the ultrasound and still have the procedure. In effect, then, the legislature has mandated that a woman have an instrument placed in her vagina for no medical benefit. The law makes no exception for victims of rape and incest.

Emphasis mine.

Nobody should be forced to undergo a medical procedure against their will. Nobody should have to undergo an invasive, expensive, non-consensual and wholly unnecessary procedure as a prerequisite for another procedure. No right-thinking person should promote a law that requires doctors to penetrate a woman’s vagina with a medical instrument against her will.

It’s disgusting. And I’m trying not to sound hyperbolic here, but it’s awfully close to sexual assault.

It’s not surprising, though. Anti-choicers are willing to do anything — even make women suffer through invasive, sometimes painful procedures (as anyone who has had a vaginal ultrasound can attest, they are not pleasant) — to punish women. It’s not about “life,” and it’s not about saving babies. It is about controlling, punishing and doing harm to women who make unapproved sexual choices.


138 thoughts on Anti-Choicers: Punishing Women with Non-Consensual Invasive Medical Procedures

  1. when i was pregnant i was hospitalized briefly for dehydration. a catheter was placed in my bladder to inflate it, and i was given a vaginal ultrasound. it was horrible and painful, and when the nurse put something that looked like a condom over the probe she told me “i guess if you had used one of these you wouldn’t be here”.

    and i was planning to carry my pregnancy to term.

    i can not even imagine the horrors of having this done when you do not plan to carry to term, when you have been a victim of rape (b/c like i said, it hurt), etc.

    this is probably one of the worst laws i can think of on abortion.

    *groan*

  2. Whoa, I never even knew ultrasounds could be done through the vagina. What’s the reasoning behind that?

  3. That’s tantamount to rape. That’s really, really disgusting.

    Seven years ago I ended up in the ER with totally debilitating, scream-inducing abdominal pain. Because I was 29, and possibly fertile, the ER staff felt it necessary to rule out STDs as the cause of my pain (since it could have been chlamydia etc) and also refused to give me any pain medication until they could rule out that I was not pregnant. For some reason I was subjected to FOUR pelvic exams by different doctors and one really unpleasant vaginal ultrasound. All of this was creepy and invasive and I CONSENTED to it as I was willing to do anything to figure out what was wrong with me. (It turned out my appendix was about to explode.) I can’t imagine how horrible and demeaning it would be to have a forced vaginal ultrasound when all you want is to terminate a pregnancy. Disgusting.

  4. Danakitty: Transvaginal ultrasound can get a better view of your insides — I had another one to check for ovarian cysts a couple of years ago.

    It’s really invasive though — it really is like someone puts a condom on the battery end of a large electric toothbrush, inserts it into your vagina, and moves it around. Not fun, not fun at all.

  5. Oh my god, that’s awful. If the doctor or patient isn’t allowed to decide which procedure to use, who makes that decison?

    I’ll have to read the damn bill. I hate these people.

  6. It’s not about “life,” and it’s not about saving babies. It is about controlling, punishing and doing harm to women who make unapproved sexual choices.

    I think you’re right and you’re wrong there. The goal of these kinds of laws, as with virtually all laws put forth by the forced birth crowd, is to punish women who make unapproved sexual choices. But thats a secondary gain for this crowd. The primary gain is a reduction in the number of abortions. You have to see women as something other than incubators for the next generation of souls for you to really care about what choices lead to those souls making their way to earth. For the forced birth crowd birth is supposed to be painful and harmful because thats what god decreed when Adam and Eve ate the apple. But thats of secondary importance to more people.

    Remember, abortion is offensive to this crowd because it violates the will of their imaginary friend on many levels. Trying to pin down just one only serves to reduce the horror of what they’re arguing.

  7. If the doctor or patient isn’t allowed to decide which procedure to use, who makes that decison?

    The doctor or patient? I think this bill would be every bit as monstrous if the doctor got to decide and not the woman. Ultimate control should always lie in the hands of the patient, regardless of what the doctor or some asshat who traded enough favors for a local congressional seat thinks.

  8. So this is a law in Oklahoma or just on its way to becoming one? It passed the legislature, according to the article, but does the governor or something have to sign it? Because it sounds completely, insanely un-implementable and definitely illegal. It’s going to be challenged immediately.

    this stuff just makes me crazy. The people who are anti-choice on general underexamined principle, or who just don’t care enough to be informed either way, I can kind of get how they arrive at their stupid, head-full-of-cheese opinions. But to be an elected official and actually put your imprimatur on this kind of all-in-the-details, elaborately thought out plan to hurt women that in the end is bound to be overturned, that’s just, it’s actually evil. This stuff takes my breath away every time I get confronted with it.

  9. I’m looking into the history and I’m going to blog about it, myself. I believe the House passed a similar bill. I’m not familiar enough with OK to know exactly what this means, or what else has to happen before this becomes law. Someone else probably knows better than I do.

  10. For some reason I was subjected to FOUR pelvic exams by different doctors and one really unpleasant vaginal ultrasound. All of this was creepy and invasive and I CONSENTED to it as I was willing to do anything to figure out what was wrong with me. (It turned out my appendix was about to explode.)

    Sorry if I’m derailing here, but Lillet – they did four pelvic exams and an ultrasound BEFORE they thought to check your appendix? Unless your appendix was located in a completely wacky place, that seems like malpractice territory (especially since I’m assuming they charged you or your insurance for each procedure).

  11. I’m sure that someone’s going to argue that a woman seeking an abortion has already consented to have her uterus invaded by a medical procedure. But the thing is, this ultrasound is not even a medical procedure — it’s because they want a photo of a fetus. The most grotesque part to me is:

    The law states that either an abdominal or vaginal ultrasound, whichever gives the best image of the fetus, must be done. Neither the patient nor the doctor can decide which type of ultrasound to use, and the patient cannot opt out of the ultrasound and still have the procedure.

    That makes it totally clear — it’s not up to the doctor, whose job it is to maximize the patient’s health and well-being. The purpose is photography — it’s a state-mandated Camera-in-Your-Cooch program. I mean, what? Does the law also insist that the doctor show the patient the images, or else lose their medical license and be fined $10k – $100k? Does it insist that the woman keep her eyes open and stare intently at the ultrasound results for no less than 30 seconds, or she can’t receive any further reproductive health care? This is such bullshit.

  12. For those who ask, an intravaginal ultrasound is better for checking out the ovaries, uterine malformations, and early-stage pregnancy. Something like prior to 7 weeks you can’t see anything from an abdominal ultrasound but can see quite a bit from a vaginal one. So yes, vaginal ultrasounds do have legitimate medical usage. I’ve been through several, and mine were thankfully not that bad. One thing that helped was my doctor/u/s tech had me insert the probe and not them. That, the heatlamp, and the generally friendly environment. Much like paps, I think it depends on the woman and the practitioner.

    That said, I am by no means whatsoever condoning this. The legislature forcing objects into a woman’s vagina IS rape, quite literally by the government. This is so disgusting i can’t even articulate how disgusting it is.

  13. Holly:

    “C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images.”

    The good gentlemen of the State have deemed that you may avert your eyes.

  14. It’s disgusting. And I’m trying not to sound hyperbolic here, but it’s awfully close to sexual assault.

    I don’t find that to be an exaggeration at all.

    Though I am surprised that vaginal ultrasounds are painful for some people. I’ve had at least two, and though it’s slightly awkward to have a stranger hold a condom-clad instrument in your vagina, it didn’t hurt. Of course, both times they used tons of lube. I don’t think that pain/no pain makes a difference at all in whether or not a woman should be forced to undergo the procedure — I’m just surprised.

    But yeah, the Oklahoma legislature can go fuck itself.

  15. I suppose some will say that it’s not forced penetration because she can choose not to have the abortion.

    Which is not coersion, oh no.

  16. A good friend of mine had to undergo a vaginal ultrasound when she was 17 years old. She LOST HER VIRGINITY that way. (If you define virginity as the presence of a hymen.) It hurt her and she bleed and cried and was one of the most tramatic experiences this girl has ever endured. I cannot imagine going through this after being raped or incest or even just cause you do not want to carry something inside of you for 9 months. This is rape and bullshit.

    Goddess now I’m pissed.

  17. I blogged before about a Missouri bill that is similar. Maybe I’m just noticing the pattern because I’m paying attention, but the new bills with supposed concern that the woman is not being coerced into an abortion seems to be particularly popular right now.

    Is this their new tactic, or is it old and I just never noticed?

  18. The legislature forcing objects into a woman’s vagina IS rape, quite literally by the government. This is so disgusting i can’t even articulate how disgusting it is.

    Ashley, I totally agree with you, it is government-mandated rape.

  19. Lillet, I agree with Girl Detective. If someone comes in with debilitating abdominal pain, I would have thought one of the first things they’d think of would be appendicitis. Also, teaching hospitals have a sketchy past when it comes to doing multiple pelvic exams for teaching purposes. (Yes, I’ll look for a cite).

  20. Not that I don’t believe that the many people probably DO have all kinds of harmful intentions in passing this legislation, there is actual medical use for ultrasounds prior to an abortion and actually, it’s required in most places by the doctor, if not the state.

    At the age of 25, I just terminated my first pregnancy last week. It was not a difficult decision (though I had always thought it would be, evil anti-choice propaganda.) I terminated pretty early, only 5.5 weeks, but in order to determine how far along I was, the doctors had to do a (vaginal) ultrasound. And because I had opted to have a medical abortion, the clinic REQUIRED me to have a vaginal ultrasound. They explained it in paperwork given to me in the waiting room, and it’s also explained on the PPhood website. The Dr was really great, and asked me if I would want to know if I had multiples and if I wanted to see the ultrasound. I opted for yes on both, and still believe I made the right decision. Tomorrow, I have to go for a followup appointment to make sure that my uterus is clear, which will require me to have another vaginal ultrasound. In order for the clinic to perform the procedure, I had to sign all kinds of things stating that I would let them do these things. And even if I had a surgical abortion, the Drs would do an ultrasound to see which procedure was necessary. Which means, they need a good pic of the fetus to figure out how far along someone is. There is a medical use. And even though it’s not law, these ARE mandatory requirements – you can’t get the abortion without agreeing to do them. But all that said, they are for the health of the mother, and I, for one, am all for protecting that.

  21. Danakitty: Vaginal ultrasounds can give a better view of the embryo/fetus in the early stages of the pregnancy than an abdominal ultrasound would as I understand it (I could be wrong). It’s great if you’re having trouble early on in your pregnancy, and I imagine if something else were going on with your reproductive organs without a pregnancy, it could possibly be a lifesaver. However, in this case it’s about punishing and embarrassing women who know they don’t want to continue their pregnancy.

  22. I should also say, they need a good pic of the fertilized egg, embryo or fetus. When I saw my ultrasound, I was so early, it was just a sac filled with fluid.

  23. TB, Holly’s highlighted the problematic language:

    The law states that either an abdominal or vaginal ultrasound, whichever gives the best image of the fetus, must be done. Neither the patient nor the doctor can decide which type of ultrasound to use, and the patient cannot opt out of the ultrasound and still have the procedure.

    The law is clearly not about the woman’s health, but about controlling and coercing women.

  24. The commenters over at my place had a field day with this one.

    Some of them are so anti-choice that they can’t see the light…it made me incredibly sad. People were saying things like, “Well, if you’re gonna have sex (nevermind rape or incest), be prepared for the consequences!” and “If the ultrasound makes women change their mind, good. Their mind wasn’t made up about the abortion in the first place!”

    UGH

  25. TB, this bill puts into law that an ultrasound is required for the purposes of obtaining consent, not for legitimate medical purposes.

  26. FashionablyEvil,

    I see the language as problematic, but I actually think the language is worse than what is the practice in most places (but which still meets the definition of the language.) As someone who was so early on, I couldn’t have a abdominal ultrasound – you could only tell vaginally, which means that was the best way to get a picture of the fetus. I couldn’t have had an abortion at the clinic without a vaginal ultrasound, which is really exactly what that language requires.

    Now, I understand this makes no sense in later pregnancies, when a abdominal ultrasound will work. So, yeah, mandating a vaginal ultrasound when not necessary – pretty horrible. But mandating an ultrasound? It really has medical uses and most clinics mandate it anyway. Hopefully clinics will do the right thing (like PP) and turn the screen towards the dr, away from the patient, while it is being given.

  27. But mandating an ultrasound? It really has medical uses and most clinics mandate it anyway.

    Right–it’s a legitimate medical procedure, but we don’t go around mandating that dentists take x-rays before doing root canals. There’s nothing wrong with doing an ultrasound prior to performing an abortion–as you noted, it’s medically indicated. The problem is the Oklahoma legislature is poking its nose where it has no business doing so.

  28. It really has medical uses and most clinics mandate it anyway. Hopefully clinics will do the right thing (like PP) and turn the screen towards the dr, away from the patient, while it is being given.

    1. Medical discretion shouldn’t be legislated. That it is done in many places does not justify mandating it by law.

    2. From the bill itself: “3. Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them;”

  29. Even though I have a history of extensive sexual violence, I can usually tolerate the paps & the transvag ultrasounds. But some techs are SO clueless, insensitive, rough, and fast that it can be an extremely painful procedure.

    Regardless of personal experience, this law is terrible. Some sadist anti-choice ultrasound tech is going to decide to only do transvaginal ultrasounds for people who want abortions just like the pharmacy techs refuse to give out plan b. WHY!!!

  30. Wow.

    I am so seriously considering moving to Canada before this sort of crap becomes national law.

    My only worry is if this isn’t opposed here, it will just spread.

    Cripes I hate my species.

  31. The good gentlemen of the State have deemed that you may avert your eyes.

    Who was it that first proposed that in the case of one of these forced ultrasounds, the woman in question should start screaming, “Oh God, get it out of me, get it out, get it out, get it out!”

  32. Amelia, where did you get that particular group of trolls and can you take them back to the store and get a better set?

    I couldn’t be more obtuse if I tried.

    And Cat of Many Faces – just you wait. The Unborn Victims of Crime Bill is in Committee right now, and a bill to allow medical practicioners to refuse treatment based on religious grounds is next up here in Canada.

  33. Um, I’ve had vaginal ultrasounds at every gyn/ob exams I’ve ever had and they’ve never been painful. For women on the pill that would be twice a year, for every other woman once a year. But they always explain what they’re going to d (even the gazillionth time you have it)o and why (check out your ovaries, looking for cysts etc). But then it’s Germany and paid for by the insurance.

    Anyway, that law is really screwing women. I mean, neither the doctor or the patient can decide which way gives the “best picture”. HELLO? Maybe a professional photog in every hospital? Or rather, a best of gallery in the hallways for added shame?

  34. That’s not awfully close to sexual assault, it IS. That is rape. State-sanctioned rape. And the rapists are the jackasses who put this law into effect. It is becoming more and more frightening to be a woman in the U.S….

  35. Or, you could, you know, just not have sex.

    Gasp.

    That’d be crazy, though, wouldn’t it? We can tell men all day long to “keep in their pants”, but oh no, we can’t tell women to “keep their legs closed”.

    If you make your bed, f’ing lie in it. Don’t complain and whine that you have to “endure” 10 minutes of discomfort. Because, you know, there’s nothing invasive about abortions, right?

    The gall of some feminists amuses and astounds me. Not only do you want to be as irresponsible as possible, but you want the government to pay for it and bail you out.

    Grow up, and leave your extended childhood. The government is not here to replace mommy and daddy to haul you out of your problems.

    If you don’t want ultrasounds, or have to deal with the trouble required to get an abortion, don’t have sex. It’s pretty damn easy. You don’t need sex to live, it’s not a necessity, and I fail to see why you have so little self control as to just not have sex unless you’re prepared to deal with the consequences.

    But then, we can’t denigrate women for having sex, just men, right?

  36. Though I am surprised that vaginal ultrasounds are painful for some people.

    I wonder if it depends on the equipment provided. When they gave me one to check for appendicitis, they handed me the probe and I said, “That’s not a probe, that’s a boyfriend!” Seriously, that thing was 2 inches in diameter and, well, let’s just say I’m glad they had me try and wedge it in there myself. I can’t even imagine being forced into it for a non-medical reason.

  37. Um, I’ve had vaginal ultrasounds at every gyn/ob exams I’ve ever had and they’ve never been painful.

    Just because it wasn’t painful for you doesn’t mean it’s not painful/uncomfortable for other women.

    SoE, why the heck would they make you have an ultrasound twice a year? What’s the point?

    I wondered that myself. Why would they want to expose healthy women to radiation once or twice a year unless there is an indication?

  38. Why would they want to expose healthy women to radiation once or twice a year unless there is an indication?

    The only radiation involved in an ultrasound comes from the screen it is read on. Ultrasound is high frequency sound waves, not electromagnetic radiation. Which doesn’t mean that it is absolutely benign, although as far as I know, no one’s ever found anything dangerous about ultrasounds. Which is not to say that using them when they aren’t indicated is a good idea, of course. My guess is that the indication in the case mentioned is monitoring for cysts, which can occur more frequently in women who take birth control pills. However, I am guessing wildly.

    I had a vaginal ultrasound as part of an infertility workup. I don’t remember it as being painful, just awkward and uncomfortable. Just to reassure anyone who needs one for an actual medical indication that it won’t necessarily be hideously painful.

    This law is unspeakable. It is state sanctioned sexual assault and I don’t see how they expect it to not be immediately challenged. Or maybe they don’t care because even if it is immediately struck down by the courts, they will have had their fun and tortured a few women.

  39. I wondered that myself. Why would they want to expose healthy women to radiation once or twice a year unless there is an indication?

    Just for clarification: ultrasound procedures use sound waves, *not* ionizing radiation. An ultrasound is very different from an X-ray.

  40. Is there any mechanism for holding the legislators who proposed and supported this law to account? That is, is it in any way illegal for the legislators to pass a law that clearly violates human rights? Suppose the leg passed a law stating that every fertile woman must have sex with one of them without birth control? Would there be anything to do about that except hope that they got voted out at the next election or impeached? Can we ask the feds to intervene? How about the UN? I’m only half joking, because this law isn’t too far from what the leaders of the FLDS were doing in Texas and they got arrested for it. So why should the Oklahoma leg do the same thing with impunity?

  41. Just for clarification: ultrasound procedures use sound waves, *not* ionizing radiation. An ultrasound is very different from an X-ray.

    Yes, you are correct. However, ultrasounds do emit radiation, non-ionizing radiation, but radiation nonetheless. X-rays emit ionizing radiation.

  42. Grow up, and leave your extended childhood. The government is not here to replace mommy and daddy to haul you out of your problems.

    Did your mommy and daddy demand doctors sexually assault you before offering you medical care? If so, that would help explain your twisted views.

  43. The only radiation involved in an ultrasound comes from the screen it is read on. Ultrasound is high frequency sound waves, not electromagnetic radiation. Which doesn’t mean that it is absolutely benign, although as far as I know, no one’s ever found anything dangerous about ultrasounds.

    Actually, no. As I stated above, ultrasounds do emit non-ionizing radiation and not from the screen. You are right, there haven’t been any real long-term studies done on the effects of ultrasound(s) so there is nothing saying it’s dangerous, but the fact is that we don’t know that for sure. So, since we don’t know for sure if it’s safe, no reason to expose healthy women to radiation without indication.

  44. Looks like something slipped past the mod queue…

    Something with some serious misogyny and sex issues.

  45. “The government is not here to replace mommy and daddy to haul you out of your problems.”

    Uh, you could have fooled me. The government tries to be mommy and daddy to control women. Why else these laws? Most women who get abortions DO pay for it themselves and are doing the responsible thing and NOT having a baby they can’t care or pay for.

  46. Something with some serious misogyny and sex issues.

    What, you don’t find those to be endearing qualities?

  47. It’s disgusting. And I’m trying not to sound hyperbolic here, but it’s awfully close to sexual assault.

    It is? Really? Because when I was a teen and was sexually assaulted, I would have much preferred to have been forced to have an ultrasound instead.

    You’re a moron if you think that being forced to have an ultrasound is anywhere close to having a man forcibly shove his penis in your vagina.

    Fail.

  48. What, you don’t find those to be endearing qualities?

    😆 Apparently no one else does either. Why else would he be so intent on telling us that sex isn’t important and not a necessity if he was getting any?

  49. You’re a moron if you think that being forced to have an ultrasound is anywhere close to having a man forcibly shove his penis in your vagina.

    Fail.

    I know teh reading iz hard, but read the article, genius. Under the law, some women would be required to have a medical instrument forcibly shoved in their vaginas without their consent.

    That is very close to sexual assault.

  50. Dearest Jill,

    I would have rather had a doctor force me to agree to have his lubed medical instrument placed in my vagina to perform a medical test than have the guy who mows my mom’s lawn put a knife to my throat and drool on me while shoving his penis in my vagina.

    Is the law stupid? Yes. Is it most likely unconstitutional? Probably. Am I pro-choice? Why, yes. I am!

    Are you trying to make this worse than it by throwing sexual assault out there? ZOMG you are! Lookit! You made drama! You win teh interwebs stoopid award!

    Gratz.

    And still… fail.

    Sincerely,
    Jen

  51. I would have rather had a doctor force me to agree to have his lubed medical instrument placed in my vagina to perform a medical test than have the guy who mows my mom’s lawn put a knife to my throat and drool on me while shoving his penis in my vagina.

    Uh, yeah, me too — but who said that was the choice here?

    Are you trying to make this worse than it by throwing sexual assault out there? ZOMG you are! Lookit! You made drama! You win teh interwebs stoopid award!

    Actually, the legal definition of sexual assault in most places in the U.S. recognizes that it doesn’t require a penis. You can certainly sexually assault someone with instruments other than a sexual organ.

    And this isn’t a battle of what’s-the-worst-assault. In the post, I even said that calling it sexual assault may be a bit hyperbolic. But it still stands that it’s a law attempting to require doctors to penetrate a woman’s vagina against her will. Under most definitions, that is sexual assault. Whether it’s the worst kind of sexual assault you can imagine isn’t the issue.

  52. Actually, you said:

    It’s disgusting.

    Yes it is, and I’m right there with you.

    And I’m trying not to sound hyperbolic here,

    Trying not to =/= it may be. Just sayin’.

    but it’s awfully close to sexual assault.

    Legal sexual assault? Sure. Actual sexual assault? mmmmm, not quite. See, you’re missing my point. I was with you until you pull out the ZOMG ITZ LIEK RAPE!!!11!!1 bit. Because, you know? It’s really not.

    Are you getting my point here? The bill is stupid and will not pass because it’s stupid, and the whole part about being unconstitutional. That’ll probably kill this amazingly lame bill as well.

    My point is that by effectively calling it rape, you sound like a hysterical, mouth foaming drama whore. In addition, you are trivializing actual rape.

    So to recap, because you’re having a hard time with this: Bill = very bad. Trivializing rape to try to make a point = also very bad.

    kthxby

  53. Jen,

    With all due respect to your survivor status, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    When I was sexually assaulted, it was gentle (that almost made it worse) and it was with an object, an object that is actually SMALLER than a transvaginal ultrasound device. Does that make it not rape? Because there was no knife, because there was no penis? Does that make it not as bad as yours? No. No. No. It WAS rape. It still left me filled with terror and lifelong emotional scars.

    Anytime anything is FORCED into a female’s vagina AGAINST HER WILL, it is RAPE. Including forced “medical procedures.”

    Since the woman in question does not even have to look at the U/S, the ONLY provision in this law is that an object be put into a woman’s vagina against her will. This is the only purpose of the law. To force an object into a woman’s vagina. That is rape.

  54. It is? Really? Because when I was a teen and was sexually assaulted, I would have much preferred to have been forced to have an ultrasound instead.

    You’re a moron if you think that being forced to have an ultrasound is anywhere close to having a man forcibly shove his penis in your vagina.

    Fail.

    Damn sorry about your previous problems there, Jen, but being forced to have anything forced up your cooch in order to get medical care is rape.

    I suggest YOU fail here. And miserably.

  55. Anytime anything is FORCED into a female’s vagina AGAINST HER WILL, it is RAPE. Including forced “medical procedures.”

    Hence the term birthrape, no?

  56. Jen-

    sexual assault as defined by American Hertiage Dictionary:
    n. Conduct of a sexual or indecent nature toward another person that is accompanied by actual or threatened physical force or that induces fear, shame, or mental suffering.

    This could include rape, as you refered to, but doesn’t have to be that situation to be called a sexual assault. I don’t think Jill was trying to compare the two.

    Still an invasive vaginal exam without consent would feel like a violation or assault. Especially since the legislation’s intention is to produce shame. In the future, try not to be so literal. Or hateful.

  57. Jen, I’m having a hard time buying any of what you are saying, because of how dismissive you are of other woman’s experiences and how insensitive in general you are with this subject. If you were serious, you wouldn’t be discounting the thousands of women who are raped by objects each year. You wouldn’t be discounting the thousands of women whose rape didn’t fit the “knife wielding crazed stranger” type. Excuse me for sounding like I am now dismissing your experience, but I find your words incredibly insulting and ignorant, you sound as if you have no clue about this subject at all. I’m a survivor and I would never ever try and minimize another’s experience like you did. I would never try and say that one type of rape is “worse” than another. I would never say that rape by object is “better” than rape by penis or vice versa. It’s just ridiculous to even go that route. Every woman has different experiences and for you to say that one woman’s experience of is not as valid as another’s because it doesn’t fit your (misunderstood) definition of rape, is just mean and cruel to say the least.

    Jill in no way was trivializing rape by likening this bill (which forces insertion of an object into a womans vagina without her consent) to sexual assault, because you see, penetration without consent IS the definition of sexual assault. It doesn’t matter whether or not there is a knife involved, it doesn’t matter whether or not the person involved is a stranger, an acquaintance or a medical professional. Penetration without consent is the definition of sexual assault. Period.

    I feel like adding a lot more to this but I am restraining myself…

  58. I had to terminate a wanted pregnancy this year b/c the baby (fetus) was going to die at or shortly after birth. It was awful. My husband and I both stared at the little person wiggling around- looking fine to our untrained eyes and it was heart-wrenching knowing the little one would never make it. I had a trans-vaginal u/s (dildo-cam as we came to call it after many different uses to look at the malformations) The u/s was pretty invasive- although in my desperation I didn’t mind. What I don’t understand, is WHY do legislators require any photography prior to an abortion. I know people who have terminated pregnancies- it’s never a great time. Nobody wakes up on their ovulation day saying, wow I hope i get pregnant so I can go have an fun and exciting abortion. It sucks.

  59. Yo Jen, maybe people would take your opinions more to heart if you didn’t follow them up with obnoxious shit like calling someone a moron simply because you don’t agree with them.

    Fail.

  60. (if you get cut off while commenting does it mean you should stop- well I won’t)
    So why make it worse. Women aren’t recreationally aborting or being flippant about it. It’s a major thing. If a woman doesn’t want a baby but she is pregnant- then she shouldn’t have to look at pictures of it on ultrasound, or have the dildo-cam shoved in her to do it!

    Looking for the best picture, more overweight women will have the trans-vag type b/c if you have fat over your uterus they get a shitty picture of your embryo. So not only do women get punsihed for wanting an abortion,but as a bonus for being heavy you get the dildo cam. Great.

  61. GirlDetective: My pain was so diffuse and all through my abdomen — I mean, like I imagine John Hurt’s character in Alien’s pain before the alien popped out of his stomach — but yeah, there were 4 pelvics, then the vaginal ultrasound, then a CAT scan, and I guess because I had peritonitis by that point and they couldn’t really see what was going on (or so they said!) they just went in there laprascopically.

    FashionablyEvil: Thank you so much for that cite! JAYSUS that is even worse. I was at Cornell in NYC, which is a teaching hospital — I wonder if I did have more pelvics while I was sedated. It wouldn’t surprise me. Ugh, ugh ugh.

    Jen – I am really really sorry to hear about your assault. I was raped in college by a classmate while I was sleeping. It sucked and was awful, but it wasn’t at knifepoint. Had I been awake and raped at knifepoint, I would perhaps have a different constellation of feelings about my assault. That being said, all rape is unacceptable and criminal, and I hope you can see that no one here is trying to diminish what you went through. The attitude that it is okay to rape a woman at knifepoint and that it is okay to force women to penetrative medical procedures come from the same wellspring, which is the attitude that women are not allowed to own their own bodies. That is the connection that everyone is making here. I’m really sorry that that happened to you.

  62. To those of you dismissing the potential of transvaginal ultrasounds to cause pain: they can, and do. I had to get one because I was unable to complete a pap smear (even with a pediatric speculum), and my gynecologist was concerned that I might have physical abnormalities. Unfortunately, the ultrasound techs didn’t bother to pay attention to my doctor’s explanation – or mine. When they were dissatisfied with the results of the over-the-stomach ultrasound, the techs brought out a full-sized transvaginal ultrasound probe. They ignored me when I tried to explain that if a pediatric speculum didn’t fit, there was no way the ultrasound probe would. And they tried to shove it in.

    It hurt so badly that I ended up kicking one of them away (unintentionally.) I spent the next half hour or more crying alone in the examination room. I felt ashamed and in pain, and it was very, very hard to get the courage to go back to my doctor. I haven’t had a pelvic exam since, and I’m not sure how I’ll handle it when I have to. You might or might not consider my experience sexual assault, but it’s as close as I ever want to come. I really hope that pair of technicians never runs into someone who was raped or otherwise sexually assaulted.

    Now, most women don’t have my physical problems. But there is plenty of opportunity for pain and trauma in an unwanted transvaginal ultrasound. It’s nowhere near hyperbolic to say that the procedure has the potential to be way too close to government-sanctioned sexual assault for comfort.

  63. # D says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pm – Edit

    Or, you could, you know, just not have sex.

    Gasp.

    That’d be crazy, though, wouldn’t it? We can tell men all day long to “keep in their pants”, but oh no, we can’t tell women to “keep their legs closed”.

    If you make your bed, f’ing lie in it. Don’t complain and whine that you have to “endure” 10 minutes of discomfort. Because, you know, there’s nothing invasive about abortions, right?

    The gall of some feminists amuses and astounds me. Not only do you want to be as irresponsible as possible, but you want the government to pay for it and bail you out.

    Grow up, and leave your extended childhood. The government is not here to replace mommy and daddy to haul you out of your problems.

    If you don’t want ultrasounds, or have to deal with the trouble required to get an abortion, don’t have sex. It’s pretty damn easy. You don’t need sex to live, it’s not a necessity, and I fail to see why you have so little self control as to just not have sex unless you’re prepared to deal with the consequences.

    But then, we can’t denigrate women for having sex, just men, right?

    Man, you’re just being insensitive all over the internet today, aren’t you?

    At least you kept the name calling out of it this time… just stuck to insults via condescension.

    And by the way, he’s not getting any – thanks his lucky stars he’s not in a relationship. God forbid you have to interact with real women and not, say, cartoon characters based on unrealistic beauty standards.

  64. This is a horrible law–sick through and through. Is it possible it will be challenged it court?

    I’m guessing (though this is just a guess) that some of the same legislators who voted this law will go out on the campaign trail and rail against “Big Government” and its interference in people’s personal lives–since that’s often a favorite conservative rallying cry. IMHO.

  65. I am in so many ways glad I’m not in the US and this one gets added to that column. I did want to leave a comment here to explain that, because midwives O/Gs and drs are no longer trained in manual palpation of internal organs, an u/s is used to cover arse / check for defects. Twice a year sounds uber excessive though, German or not. And yes, while u/s is not ionising radiation, it’s also not benign and I’d rather not have my innards zapped so appreciate my midwive’s skills in this area.

  66. Actually, no. As I stated above, ultrasounds do emit non-ionizing radiation and not from the screen.

    Nitpicking physicist here… perhaps this is a case of physicist terminology not translating exactly to medical terminology, but ultrasound is not radiation. Ultrasound is high-frequency sound waves, i.e. variations in pressure, not part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

    With that out of the way, this bill sends chills down my spine. If it hasn’t become law, I hope it never does; and if it has, I hope someone sues the crap out of Oklahoma and gets this struck way the frak down.

  67. This really is sick stuff. It is tantamount to sexual assault – performed vicariously by those penning the law. I don’t think it should be done to anyone without consent, regardless of whether it was due to rape/incest. To do it to those people too is worse than sick, worse than wrong. It’s immoral to a degree that makes me wish for vengeful gods to strike people down.

  68. T., I’m so sorry you had to go through that.

    This isn’t “tantamount to sexual assault”, it IS sexual assault. The Oklahoma legislature is stating that any woman seeking an abortion be forced to have a camera-dildo shoved into her vagina. No bets on how many hands they used while typing up this monstrosity.

  69. You can read this page to learn about the physical definition of ‘radiation’:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod3.html

    Radiation is only when the energy is carried by subatomic particles or by EM waves. Sound waves (including ultrasound) are pressure variations of the conducting media. It’s the same physical effect as talking – pressure variations in the body.

  70. Yeah, this kinda sounds like a legislature saying ‘well, if she’s having sex, then she has to give US a chance to shove stuff in her too, damnit.’

    Creeeeeeeeepy.

  71. Apparently no one else does either. Why else would he be so intent on telling us that sex isn’t important and not a necessity if he was getting any?

    What does that even mean? So, because I’m not interested in sex, that automatically means I must really want it, and am not getting any? Get a grip.

    And by the way, he’s not getting any – thanks his lucky stars he’s not in a relationship. God forbid you have to interact with real women and not, say, cartoon characters based on unrealistic beauty standards.

    Again, what does that even mean?

    I love how no one is allowed to say a word about how a woman chooses to live her life, but if a man chooses not to have a relationship…he must hate women?

    Then, can I assume that every hetero woman that doesn’t date automatically hates men? I mean, that would be fair, right?

    Honestly. You’re just being ridiculous. How do you even draw the conclusion that I hate women, or somehow want a “cartoon character”, because I’m not in a relationship, and have absolutely no interest in being in one?

    It sounds like you’re bitter about it. I mean, HOW DARE a man refuse women! That stupid man should know he’s nothing without a woman, right?

    i love the “you don’t need sex to live” statement.

    You don’t. You can wank it or whatever floats your boat.

  72. Thanks to Puellasolis at #78 and Haydin at #81 for further clarifications after I had to leave regarding sound waves and radiation. I wasn’t trying to be a thread-jacking science nerd, but I wanted to make sure that no one was confused as to ultrasound procedures and risks. Radiation is frequently misunderstood (and not surprisingly, since it is frequently misrepresented in the press), and I just wanted to make sure that no one refused a medically necessary ultrasound based on confusion that it was equivalent to an abdominal x-ray, which it is not (not that one should necessarily refuse that either, depending on the situation). Ultrasounds certainly have their own risks and benefits, and each person has to decide if it is right for her and her particular situation. But it is not radiation.

    That said, this bill is crap. Legislators shouldn’t make medical decisions–patients and their caregivers should make medical decisions.

  73. Would this bill also include women who were opting to take RU-486? Or is it just for surgical abortion?

  74. Well, I was checking on the RU-486 question by ElleBeMe, and came across something else I just don’t understand. Maybe someone can clear it up?

    If a physician who prescribes RU-486 to induce abortion and it results in an incomplete abortion, severe bleeding or an adverse effect to the RU-486, the physician has to report it to “State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision or State Board of Osteopathic Examiners. The Board shall compile and retain all reports it receives pursuant to this subsection. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, all reports the Board receives under this subsection are public records open to inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act; however, the Board shall not release the name or any other personal identifying information” Is that normal?

    To answer ElleBeMe’s question, the ultrasound is required “in order for the woman to make informed consent” when a physician performs an abortion. By the way abortion is defined, I believe it would include medically induced abortions. Don’t take my word for it, because I”m not a lawyer, but that’s what it looks like to me.

  75. To answer ElleBeMe’s question, the ultrasound is required “in order for the woman to make informed consent” when a physician performs an abortion. By the way abortion is defined, I believe it would include medically induced abortions. Don’t take my word for it, because I”m not a lawyer, but that’s what it looks like to me.

    That is what I thought too. And thank you for the research…I didn’t mean for someone to go and get it!

    It seems to me that the language as it is written implies ultrasounds need to be done for surgical abortions, but a chemical one can bypass this nonsense.

  76. D: Just because *you* don’t need sex doesn’t mean others don’t as well. I am completely okay with someone who decides they don’t need (or want) sex.

    HOWEVER, if I am in a relationship and we aren’t having sex? Depression sets in. Sex IS vital to a LOT of people. And “wanking it” is not the same.

    You’re trivializing my need for sex just as the person you replied to is trivializing you for not needing or wanting it.

  77. D: Just because *you* don’t need sex doesn’t mean others don’t as well. I am completely okay with someone who decides they don’t need (or want) sex.

    No one “needs” sex. You can want it all day long, but wants and needs are different things. Nothing in sex is a necessity, just a want. You want an orgasm, you don’t need one.

    HOWEVER, if I am in a relationship and we aren’t having sex? Depression sets in. Sex IS vital to a LOT of people. And “wanking it” is not the same.

    If you get depressed from not having sex, that’s your own failing and insecurity, not mine. Getting depressed from a lack of sex isn’t a healthy way to live. It’s like people that get depressed from being outside of a relationship. It’s an issue of insecurity that needs to be worked on.

    You’re trivializing my need for sex just as the person you replied to is trivializing you for not needing or wanting it.

    Again, you don’t need it. You want to get off, but you don’t need to get off.

  78. I wrote the article on AlterNet, so I wanted to clarify some things.

    The bill passed both houses in the Oklahoma legislature. The Governor vetoed it citing a lack of exception for rape and incest, but the both houses voted to overturn the veto less than 24 hours later. It will become law November 1, 2008. There are already discussions about how this could be attacked in the courts.

    I have seen a lot of comments on other sites about women using abortion to bail themselves out of trouble after making bad decisions–to not use birth control, not to abstain. The comments can be very harsh and judgmental and really sadden me.

    I learned long ago as a physician that MOST of us come for medical treatment because of bad decisions we have made. Heart disease, many cancers, many cases of diabetes and trauma are caused by our decisions to choose poor diets, not exercise, and engage in risky behaviors. Obviously terminating a pregnancy is different because of the potential life involved, but we all look to the medical profession to get us out of situations we have contributed to ourselves.

  79. D – you want to wander over here and tell my husband of 16 years we need to stop having sex now? I think he’d have a few words with you.

  80. Haven’t we had this argument before? Damn, it gets tired. Whatever you think of sex, D, your personal views don’t trump women’s bodily autonomy.

  81. D – you want to wander over here and tell my husband of 16 years we need to stop having sex now? I think he’d have a few words with you.

    How do you even get to saying that at this point? I never said you should stop, you can do what you want, but the point is, it’s still a want, not a need.

    Haven’t we had this argument before? Damn, it gets tired. Whatever you think of sex, D, your personal views don’t trump women’s bodily autonomy.

    Yawn. Haven’t we had this argument before? Damn, it gets tired. Why is women’s autonomy more important than that of a male? Answer me that one, and we might get somewhere.

    Point is, it’s not affecting your autonomy to have an ultrasound. You can still have an abortion. No one is stopping you. Regardless, when it comes right down to it, if you find that untenable, you can always refrain from sex until you’re prepared to reproduce, and if you never want to do so, then go ahead and get “fixed”.

  82. I don’t even know how you make the leap to men’s autonomy, since nothing in this argument has anything to do with men’s bodies.

    it’s not affecting your autonomy to have an ultrasound.
    Did you miss the point where the government is mandating vaginal ultrasound when it will provide the clearest picture?

    if you never want to do so, then go ahead and get “fixed”.

    Yeah, tell that to all the doctors who refuse to perform a tubal on a childless woman of childbearing age.

  83. I don’t even know how you make the leap to men’s autonomy, since nothing in this argument has anything to do with men’s bodies.

    Just that if a woman wants a child, a man has to live with the consequences, and has no say in the matter. His autonomy is compromised, because he is now required to fork over money for the next 18-21 years. We’re all very concerned with a woman’s right to choose when to have children, but a man has no such right.

    Other than, of course, the oft-mentioned “keep it in your pants”, which we’ve already established is apparently okay to tell men, but not to tell women.

    It also makes the small amount of money required for an abortion, and ultrasound seem quite pitiful in comparison.

    Did you miss the point where the government is mandating vaginal ultrasound when it will provide the clearest picture?

    Again, so? If you don’t want an ultrasound with your abortion, drive out of state, or don’t have sex until you’re ready to have kids, or get fixed if you never want kids, and wham, problem solved.

    Yeah, tell that to all the doctors who refuse to perform a tubal on a childless woman of childbearing age.

    Oh, please. Quit acting like it’s all about you. Just as many doctors refuse to perform vasectomies on males of same age.

    Regardless of that, you can still find one who will do so.

  84. Why didn’t you just say up front that you were an MRA troll so we could ignore you? I’ve fed the trolls too much today. I’m moving on to constructive discussions.

  85. Yeah, this kinda sounds like a legislature saying ‘well, if she’s having sex, then she has to give US a chance to shove stuff in her too, damnit.’

    Creeeeeeeeepy.

    I was just going to say the same thing. I can’t help thinking that’s part of the conscious or unconscious reasoning here, seeing as that’s a common argument (a tattooed woman mustn’t mind other things besides needles being stuck into her; a ‘slut’ must take all comers; etc., etc., ad nauseum).

  86. I’ve never understand the whole MRA whine about being on the hook for child support. Isn’t it standard practice for asshole men to refuse to pay for child support? So why don’t these MRAs just do that? After all, who’s gonna force them? The overburdened court system? The woman who is spending all her money on her kids, and is unlikely to have any left over for a lawyer?

    Who are all these men who’ve somehow been tricked into fathering children they didn’t want? You’d think it was an epidemic on par with obesity ;), the way the MRAs go on.

  87. Seriously. They’re usually the ones who don’t want any government assistance for women with kids, too. They pretty much want to put all the responsibility on the women for refusing sex or everything that comes with having a child with no concern for anyone but the poor menz.

  88. Why didn’t you just say up front that you were an MRA troll so we could ignore you? I’ve fed the trolls too much today. I’m moving on to constructive discussions.

    What do you mean, “MRA troll”? Can I call you a “WRA” troll? I mean, I fail to see your point. You want me to care deeply about women’s issues, but you think men’s issues are totally unimportant? That’s very sexist of you.

    Though, it’s funny. You demand that men should find your concerns and issues far more important than our own, that we should act as though women are better and more important than ourselves, that our own issues are silly or nonexistent, and then you’re surprised when after throwing this attitude at us, we find it really hard to care about your problems?

    Honestly. I’d be a lot more inclined to care about women’s issues if so many feminists didn’t treat men’s issues, (and men who care about them) as a big joke.

    If I made a blog for men’s issues, and laughed at and made fun of women’s issues, I’d be called a misogynist…yet…it’s perfectly okay for women to do the same.

    Much like what feminists like to claim, if women’s issues are “men’s issues, too”, then why doesn’t the reverse apply? Does it not fit in the selfish “we’re better and more important than you” worldview?

    Yeah, I have no time to waste on a “WRA troll”.

    After all, who’s gonna force them? The overburdened court system? The woman who is spending all her money on her kids, and is unlikely to have any left over for a lawyer?

    The government garnishes wages, genius.

    Who are all these men who’ve somehow been tricked into fathering children they didn’t want?

    Lots of men have been forced to pay child support by, yes, women. Go figure. All it takes is a woman exercising that “right to choose” that men aren’t allowed to have.

  89. Men have the same rights as women.

    They may choose whether or not genetic material leaves their body and becomes a human child. Because the process of genetic material that could become a human child leaving a *man’s* body is such a short window, men have fewer options to prevent genetic material from leaving. They may choose not to have sex, to have sex with condoms, to have a vasectomy, or to avoid penis-in-vagina sex and have other kinds of sex instead. As the genetic material incubates *in* a woman for nine months, she has the option of preventing it from entering, using the same methods men would use; altering her hormonal balance to avoid producing her *own* genetic material internally; or aborting the embryo as it grows inside her body. However, the fundamental principle remains the same: you can control your own genetic material until it’s out of your body; then it no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the body it’s in. You got a problem with that, write the drug companies and explain how eager you are for a hormonal means of birth control for you. Then don’t bitch when it makes you fat and depressed and kills your libido and gives you cancer.

    Men who wish to eliminate the option of abortion for women because they don’t have the option of walking away from a fetus after it is growing in a woman’s body are FUCKING INSANE. For one thing, the possibility exists to persuade a woman who is carrying a child you don’t want to get an abortion as long as she has the right to an abortion. As soon as she loses that right, SO DO YOU. For another thing, there is no parity between “I want the right to walk away from a living child without paying for it” and “I want the right to get a thing out of my body that’s living there.”

    Newsflash: once a child is born, *both* parents are on the financial hook. If a mother abandons a child using the 24-hour safe house law, by dumping it at a hospital, the father is off the hook. If the mother gives it up for adoption, the father is off the hook. *only* if the mother chooses to keep the child, which makes her *equally* financially responsible, does the man have to pay up. (And in theory a man could force a woman to pay for a child he wants but she doesn’t; if she chooses not to have an abortion because she’s morally opposed to them, but wants to give the child up for adoption, and the father wants custody, he *can* block the adoption and demand custody if he’s involved in the woman’s life and aware of what she’s doing. Most adoption requires that if the father is known he must agree as well. I’ve never heard of a man taking custody of a child that the mother wanted to give up for adoption and then suing the mother for child support, but it could happen.)

    And absolutely none of this pertains to the fate of a rape victim who became pregnant and wants to get an abortion, and is forced to endure a transvaginal ultrasound FOR NO MEDICAL REASON. Did you miss the part where this happens to rape victims too, asshole? Simply choosing not to have sex is not an option when some fucker decides that your “no” is meaningless to him and forces you.

    (By the way, before you bring up the usual MRA bullshit of male victims of statutory rape being forced to pay for their rapist’s baby: that was a travesty of justice, which left an innocent baby in the hands of a known child molester and forced an innocent victim to pay for the results of his own rape. I don’t agree with that decision and I don’t know anyone who does and in my perfect world, the rapist would have gone to jail and her baby would have gone up for adoption and the poor 12-year-old boy who was statutorily raped would not have had to pay a red cent unless he *chose* to preserve his parental rights, for instance if his parents adopted the child. And none of that has a goddamn thing to do with whether or not female rape victims should have a medical device shoved up their vaginas for no medical reason.)

  90. Again, the person above basically says “Men can keep it in their pants”. Why is it okay to say that, but not to tell women to “keep their legs closed”?

    They pretty much want to put all the responsibility on the women for refusing sex or everything that comes with having a child with no concern for anyone but the poor menz.

    Well, you have no concern for anyone but the poor womenz, so what’s the difference?

  91. Again, the person above basically says “Men can keep it in their pants”. Why is it okay to say that, but not to tell women to “keep their legs closed”?

    Because it is currently biologically and technologically possible for women to control the creation of new humans out of their genetic material and bodies via hormonal, medical and surgical methods, and the only technology currently available for men is the barrier method of condoms or the permanent method of vasectomy.

    In other words, it is not okay to tell women that they can’t do something just because men can’t, biologically, for the same reason it is not okay to tell sighted people they can’t drive just because blind people can’t. It’s biologically possible for sighted people to drive, and it’s not biologically or technologically possible for the blind to do so. This isn’t fair, but it’s reality. Passing a law that says blind people can drive would be a horrible travesty of justice in the name of enforcing “fairness”, and demanding that sighted people *also* submit to being unable to drive just because the blind can’t is also a travesty. The *solution* is build automated cars for the blind, or expand the existing infrastructure that lets them ride public transportation.

    In the same way, it is biologically possible for women to do something men can’t do. Legislating parity would either give men control over women’s bodies, or would give men a right no human should have (which is by the way a right that men, unlike women, have a 5,000 year track record of having and abusing) — the right to abandon a living child with no support. The answer to fixing a disparity caused by differential technology is not to forbid the use of the technology but to make the technology available to both parties. So men need the ability to technologically prevent themselves from fathering children in a way that is reversible and no more invasive than an abortion, or chemically prevent themselves from fathering children in a way that is reversible and no more invasive than birth control.

    You know, when we didn’t have birth control pills and the technology of abortion killed women, we *did* tell both parties “keep your legs shut”. But men had a lot more power to just walk away because it wasn’t their bodies. Now we’ve improved the technology vastly to allow women to control their own bodies, and all of a sudden men figure out they want body control technology too? And if they can’t have it, why should women? Don’t be an asshole. Everyone needs body control technology, and if women have it and men don’t, *use* the fact that you comprise over 80% of Congress and an equal percentage of Big Pharma CEOs to get what you want! C’mon, you guys are supposed to be good at inventing shit. Why are you whining that you want Big Daddy Government to take away rights from women to use technology just because it doesn’t work for your bodies? I mean, do you want us whining that you aren’t allowed to use power tools unless they’ve been designed to be small and easy for women to use? How about mandating that drywall must be 4 x 4 instead of 4 x 8 because we have a harder time carrying it than you do at the larger size? *most* technology on the planet was designed for men’s bodies. You’re such an asshole you want to forbid women to use the only technology that works for us and not you just because you’re mad that you don’t have a working technology yet?

    And, once again, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH RAPE VICTIMS BEING FORCED TO SUBMIT TO VAGINAL ULTRASOUND?

  92. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If a man doesn’t want to pay child support, he has the legal right to sign away all his parental rights (in most jurisdictions).

    You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If a man CHOOSES to retain parental rights, he is legally obligated to help raise that child, whether it be through custody or through child support payments etc. If you don’t want to pay, then terminate your rights. It’s just that easy.

    I’ve had so many female friends fight to get parental rights severed for a former male partner who won’t pay child support. But the “fathers” want to both have parental rights but not pay child support (oh, and have nothing to do with the kids). They want all the fun but none of the responsibility. You can’t have it both ways. Men DO have choices, and like all choices there are tradeoffs. Keep parental rights and pay child support, or terminate rights and don’t pay. That’s the choice.

    /offtopic

  93. Oy – D, tell you what. We’ll give you an equivalent law. You can give up parental rights, but in order to do so a doctor must perform a colonoscopy on you.

    Any hints leaking in about why we might be a bit upset about this?

  94. You can give up parental rights, but in order to do so a doctor must perform a colonoscopy on you.

    Colonoscopies are generally done under anesthesia. I suggest a different procedure as an analogy: a trans-rectal ultrasound of the prostate. The probe is a bit smaller than the transvaginal probe, but it’s the same general level of discomfort.

    In fact, how would anyone feel about a law requiring that male lawmakers have a trans-rectal ultrasound of the prostate, with biopsy, before they can pass any laws concerning abortion. Purely for informed consent purposes: they need to have some idea what they are requiring women to go through. Some would probably find it not so much fun but no big deal. Others would find it traumatic and painful. A few might even be injured by the procedure. None would get any medical benefit from it. Appalling idea, isn’t it? Well, to anyone except, apparently the Oklahoma legislature.

  95. Oy – D, tell you what. We’ll give you an equivalent law. You can give up parental rights, but in order to do so a doctor must perform a colonoscopy on you.

    Were I to still be foolish enough to have sex, I’d consent to that.

    A small bit of discomfort is greatly preferable to 18 years of it.

    Though, I’m fairly certain a colonoscopy is more painful and invasive than an ultrasound.

  96. Were I to still be foolish enough to have sex, I’d consent to that.

    See what I mean? This all boils down to D can’t get laid, so he uses mra talking points to pretend that it’s REALLY because there’s legions of women desperate to get his baby batter out of him and make him pay for it for 18 years (which shows a hilariously uninformed opinion of the court system).

    A small bit of discomfort is greatly preferable to 18 years of it.

    And he’s a misogynist as well. There’s countless posts on this thread from women detailing what was not at ALL a “small bit of discomfort” for them, but he doesn’t care to hear reality that might interfere with his carefully constructed delusions.

    Though, I’m fairly certain a colonoscopy is more painful and invasive than an ultrasound.

    Since you’re not a woman and have never had to have an interal ultrasound your opinion is completely and totally irrelevant, useless and painfully dumb.

    Have a nice day!

  97. D,

    I have a feeling you’re giving celibate people a bad name.
    Just because I happen to not engage in certain actions, doesn’t mean that I consider those actions foolish. Furthermore, women who do so and get pregnant should not be required to undergo any of these medical procedures, especially considering that those pushing for this requirement don’t care about health and medicine at all, but just want to advance an agenda of controlling women.

  98. Alara, I love that analogy (about blind and sighted people). I may have to use it in future when having this argument (with credit to you of course).

  99. “…the legislature has mandated that a woman have an instrument placed in her vagina for no medical benefit. “

    Hm. Well, just for the sake of accuracy, the bill actually reads:

    “B. In order for the woman to make an informed decision, at least one (1) hour prior to a woman having any part of an abortion performed or induced, and prior to the administration of any anesthesia or medication in preparation for the abortion on the woman, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion, or the certified technician working in conjunction with the physician, shall:
    1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;
    2. Provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting;
    3. Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them;
    4. Provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable; and
    5. Obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion, that the requirements of subsection B have been complied with
    …”

    Just a thought here:

    Who decides “whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly” ?

    Seems that the doctor makes that call, rather than the state.

    Wouldn’t you go to your own doctor for something like this? Can you imagine your doctor, under these circumstances, forcing “vaginal” when you’d rather go with “abdominal”?

    And then there’s the matter of (5) – “Obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion, that the requirements of subsection B have been complied with”.

    Overall, while the Bill itself is a bit creepy (should’ve left “vaginal” right out of it), it seems like there’s actually very little chance, in actual practice, of a vaginal probe being forced – unless the Oklahoma AG is doing the procedure, I suppose…

    – MuscleDaddy

  100. Then, can I assume that every hetero woman that doesn’t date automatically hates men? I mean, that would be fair, right?

    Honestly. You’re just being ridiculous. How do you even draw the conclusion that I hate women, or somehow want a “cartoon character”, because I’m not in a relationship, and have absolutely no interest in being in one?

    You know exactly what I’m talking about. Remember yesterday when you decided to share your opinions all over my blog? I do. You were quite rude and insulted me.

    I am, however, pretty amazed at your ability to turn any discussion into one completely about how feminists hate men, just want abortions, and hate attractive women. Great example of how issues pertaining to women get sidetracked in the name of “men’s issues.”

  101. You know exactly what I’m talking about. Remember yesterday when you decided to share your opinions all over my blog? I do. You were quite rude and insulted me.

    No, I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about. You’re making assumptions and inferences that aren’t there.

    You’re trying to pin things on me that don’t fit.

    I am, however, pretty amazed at your ability to turn any discussion into one completely about how feminists hate men, just want abortions, and hate attractive women.

    Well, you attacked me and claimed I hate women and only want women to be cartoons, based on my total lack of interest in having sex and/or dating. I mean, does it somehow make you angry that I’m not interested in those things?

    Feminists get angry if men rate them as sex objects, but here you are, claiming I hate women because I’m NOT doing that.

    Again, you didn’t answer the question: Are hetero women that don’t date misandrists that only want fake men, not real ones?

    If you attempt to label me that way, then it would be safe to make certain it applies the other way as well.

  102. D – I get that you would have the colonoscopy if it were the only way, just like most women will get the ultrasound if it’s the only way. But are you seriously telling me you wouldn’t be upset and/or outraged if your local legislature passed a law requiring such a thing when there’s no good reason for them to do so except for intimidating you?

  103. Although I don’t agree that the state interfere with medical procedures, there is a need to do an ultrasound before an abortion. Before performing an abortion, I always do an ultrasound (endovaginal usually as the pregnancy is quite small) to date the pregnancy, evaluate the uterus, determine if there are multiple gestations and to document an intrauterine pregnancy. Without accurate dating, its hard to know which sized instruments to use, how much to dilate and to avoid perforating the uterus. Techniques also change with how far a pregnancy is.

    In both of my abortions, I also had an ultrasound, so I know how invasive the procedure is. I opted to look at the screen too.

    So, good medical practice involves using an u/s exam prior to D&E. Its even more crucial prior to medical abortion. But I’m very concerned that the legislation can pass a law mandating u/s on women. Medical practice should be left to doctors, not legislators. This can be a slippery slope.

  104. Everyone needs body control technology, and if women have it and men don’t, *use* the fact that you comprise over 80% of Congress and an equal percentage of Big Pharma CEOs to get what you want! C’mon, you guys are supposed to be good at inventing shit. Why are you whining that you want Big Daddy Government to take away rights from women to use technology just because it doesn’t work for your bodies? I mean, do you want us whining that you aren’t allowed to use power tools unless they’ve been designed to be small and easy for women to use? How about mandating that drywall must be 4 x 4 instead of 4 x 8 because we have a harder time carrying it than you do at the larger size? *most* technology on the planet was designed for men’s bodies. You’re such an asshole you want to forbid women to use the only technology that works for us and not you just because you’re mad that you don’t have a working technology yet?

    Alara, you’re WONDERFUL!!! And Tapetum and Dianne, too.

    I’ve been following this thread avidly. Why though, exactly, do we keep feeding this troll? It is massively irritating–especially cause Feministe is kinda a haven for people who, you know, are united around a common cause.

    My two cents? This invasive ultrasound makes me shudder. Clearly, women have to see a picture of the fetus cause they don’t know what they’re doing (sarcasm, don’t worry). It’s like all the anti-choicers who say that if women really knew what abortions were about, they wouldn’t have them. WHY do people assume women are so CLUELESS?!

    Keep up the great work!

  105. Sure. But you’re not requiring a transvaginal ultrasound, and you’re doing so in order to facilitate the woman’s medical procedure–not shoving an instrument in her vagina in order to scare and embarass her out of it.

  106. But are you seriously telling me you wouldn’t be upset and/or outraged if your local legislature passed a law requiring such a thing when there’s no good reason for them to do so except for intimidating you?

    Not a bit, because as it stands, my local/federal legislature already passed laws requiring me to cough up a vast amount of money over 18 years, with no other option.

    Anything else would be preferable. Not that I’d ever need to use it, as I am intelligent, but still. There are a lot of people it would benefit, and would gladly subject themselves to it, over the alternative.

  107. Anything else would be preferable? Anything?

    Oh, don’t get me started on the things that can happen that are worse than the loss of some money, mister.

  108. So, having a vaginal ultrasound for no real medical purpose is the exact same thing as a man paying child support for 18 years.
    Good to know.

  109. Anything else would be preferable? Anything?

    Oh, don’t get me started on the things that can happen that are worse than the loss of some money, mister.

    Anything within reason, obviously. Nothing that would involve breaking the law, etcetera.

    For the record, it’s not “some money”. 50 dollars is “some money”. So much money that it forces some men to live in poverty, in terribly unfit residences, and not be able to afford anywhere near what the mother of the child now can, is not “some money”.

    So, having a vaginal ultrasound for no real medical purpose is the exact same thing as a man paying child support for 18 years.
    Good to know.

    No. Child support is worse, and far more invasive.

    Now, if you had to have one ultrasound a week for 18 years, we might be on the same level.

  110. Oh cheesus.
    If you think you have it bad, D, imagine being a mother.
    Not only do you have to incubate that sucker for the better part of a year, you have to bring it forth in a marathon-long pushing session. If you decide to keep the child, you have to take time off work so you can feed it with through your engorged nipples. Then, as most mothers tend to be the primary caretaker of the child, you have to feed, clothe and nurture that child ’till adulthood either with or without the help of the father.

    If you aren’t feeling like chipping in for a case of Pampers simply sign over your parental rights.

  111. IMHO, the bar for fathers is set extremely low in this country- if a father so much as shows a passing interest in his child, he’s all set to win father of the year.
    A mother, on the other hand, is practically the embodiment of sacrifice.
    So, if your dead-set against financially supporting a child you helped to create, you’re in good company and frankly, not all that special.
    I still fail to see how this issue has anything to do with the topic of the post.

  112. Katherine Kramer, I agree that there are probably mulitude medical reasons to perform u/s before an abortion. Is there a medical reason that the patient has to be shown the u/s? That’s part of the law too, which shows this legislature’s not interested in making sure doctors are practicing good medicine, but in order to try to intimidate women into not having abortions.

  113. I’m not interested in arguing with D–too many here have already done so, better than I could have–but I laughed out loud when he said this, way upthread:

    You don’t need sex to live, it’s not a necessity, and I fail to see why you have so little self control as to just not have sex unless you’re prepared to deal with the consequences.

    Wow! That would certainly be news to all the MRAs (Male Rape Apologists) who whine about how they just couldn’t control themselves, that it’s so unreasonable to ask that they stop when she says “no”, and besides, she was asking for it just by the way she was dressed. I didn’t have time to find, or handy cash for, a $1 condom, but can I still get out of support payments? There are plenty of men who pressure women to “just get an abortion so I don’t have to pay child support”.

  114. Sounds like Mr. MRATroll (like most MRAs) shoulda’ covered it up, or kept it in his pants. I do have a small amount of sympathy (less every year) for men who were “tricked” into fatherhood, but still stepped up to the plate, did the right thing and helped support their kids. Notice I said “helped” support.

    However, most MRAs are so fucking insufferable in their self-pity and their loathing of women in general, that really….all I can say to them is FOAD.

    Why more men don’t use condoms to ensure (or lessen the odds anyway) of getting their one-night stand pregnant, I just don’t understand.

  115. I think it is a great article and this website is really great . Im new here but i bookmarked this link.

    Thank you

  116. Sounds like Mr. MRATroll (like most MRAs) shoulda’ covered it up, or kept it in his pants.

    Again, why is it okay to tell a male this, but not a female? Hmm.

    Also, no, I don’t have children. I am intelligent enough to avoid sex and relationships.

    I do have a small amount of sympathy (less every year)

    Yet you want men to have more sympathy every year for the plight of women. Hmm.

    However, most MRAs are so fucking insufferable in their self-pity and their loathing of women in general, that really….all I can say to them is FOAD.

    However, most WRAs are so fucking insufferable in their self-pity and their loathing of men in general, that really….all I can say to them is FOAD.

    Honestly, I know you think you’re quite clever, yelling “But what about the menzzz” to males, but guess what? Devalue our issues, we devalue yours. Tell us ours are less important, we tell you yours are. It’s only fair.

    I’ll give one half a damn about your ultrasounds when you actually manage to care about any single issue a man faces. (An issue where repairing it won’t change or benefit women’s lives in any way.)

    I won’t hold my breath. The only men’s issues you care about are the ones that could benefit women. That’s why I don’t care about your ultrasound. Considering you can opt right out of having a kid, a right men aren’t allowed, I’m frankly not too concerned with you having to have an ultrasound POTENTIALLY, IN ONE STATE.

    Why more men don’t use condoms to ensure (or lessen the odds anyway) of getting their one-night stand pregnant, I just don’t understand.

    I ensure it the smart way. When women attempt to pursue me for relationships or sex, I tell them to F off.

  117. No. Child support is worse, and far more invasive.

    Just in case anyone forgets that this guy is just another whiny misogynstic douchebag – paying money to support one’s own children is WORSE than having a gov’t mandated, painful, unnessecary med procedure because of misogynist anti-choice politics.

    The hate coming off this dude reeks.

  118. When women attempt to pursue me for relationships or sex, I tell them to F off.

    C’mon now. We all know this never happens.

  119. D,

    You’ve said no fewer than two times that you think having sex is a stupid idea.

    Was it stupid when your parents did so?

  120. D:
    When women attempt to pursue me for relationships or sex, I tell them to F off.

    My heart bleeds for every one of the poor women who are denied of your manly essence.

  121. Just in case anyone forgets that this guy is just another whiny misogynstic douchebag – paying money to support one’s own children is WORSE than having a gov’t mandated, painful, unnessecary med procedure because of misogynist anti-choice politics.

    And we come back to this. If a male dares find men’s issues more important, it must mean he’s a “misogynist douchebag”. However, if a woman finds women’s issues more important…is she a misandrist? Nope, she just calls herself a feminist, and all is well.

    How’s that work?

    Explain to me how exactly I “hate women”. I’d love to know. I mean, do you base it on facts? Do you know me personally? Or are you just instantly using the label because I disagree with you, and find issues affecting my own gender more important than ones affecting yours? Essentially doing exactly what you do.

    C’mon now. We all know this never happens.

    It does. Not as often as men approaching women, but then, society never taught us that women should come to us bearing expensive trinkets to ask for our favor or a date.

    Was it stupid when your parents did so?

    Apparently you’re not good with reading comprehension. If I say I would find it stupid for me to do, because of all the drawbacks a sexual relationship with a woman would bring, along with no benefits, that means I find it stupid for me to do. Not sure if you caught that.

    This statement would be akin to me saying “Since you believe so strongly in abortion, should your mother have had one?”

    My heart bleeds for every one of the poor women who are denied of your manly essence.

    Well, then. My heart bleeds for everyone one of the poor women who are NOT denied an abortion, but might have to get an ultrasound first.

  122. Ok, first off… stop trying to scare everyone with how invasive is it. A pelvic/vaginal ultrasound is considered NON-invasive. (I looked it up)

    Secondly, I agree with Ashley way up at comment #12 that ultrasounds are not painfully unpleasant, awkward yes, but not outright traumatic and painful, depending on the doctor. In emergency situations maybe so cause they are rushed to find the problem, and for those of you who have had that situations I’m sorry to hear that, but I went in for an ultrasound because my period didn’t stop for 2 months straight, It was was weird but no more than that. (Exception for sexual assault victims since they are most likely physically hurt there as well as mentally traumatized from the event.)

    Finally, I don’t think this is a ploy to punish all women for making a choice, but to get the attention of those that abuse the medical treatment like a Plan B pill. I know of a girl (friend of a friend) Who is 19, already had a baby, doesn’t know who he father is, and since January of this year has already had 2 abortions because she sleeps with more guys in a week than there are days. (The worst part was when she found out about the last pregnancy she said “oh, well, I’ll get the abortion next month.” O_o. It’s people like her that give the rest of the pro-choicers a bad rep. (And don’t get me wrong, I’m all pro choice, your body, whatever, but she’s pushing the envelope of abuse there. To the system, and to her own body.)

    That being said, I do believe it is wrong to give any medical procedure without consent. It is unethical to force treatment. In fact it’s technically supposed to be illegal. Till now I guess. Originally you had right to refuse. So to withold a treatment because you won’t say yes to something not needed is against human rights.

Comments are currently closed.