The GOP's War on Women

[Simon_Jester]

The doctor's defense is duress- they're being threatened with consequences for not doing the ultrasound (and the other forced-shaming tactics the state imposes on them).

[Knife]

The bolded bit is basically blackmail or coercion because there is NO medical reason for it to be done as a mandated procedure. Sure, if the qualified medical professional says "we're worried about X, Y or Z and a T-V ultrasound is the best way to confirm", it's on full faith. But mandating it? Note that this would have to be performed on rape victims and the would-be parents who have lost a child in the womb.

Fine, and I agree. But it's not rape. To get an abortion, the woman would have to consent to the procedure, to get that procedure, she would have to consent to the transvaginal probe. Hence, if it happened, it would be by consent. Is it bullshit? Yes. Is it hoops put in front to discourage a woman from getting the procedure? Yes. Is it rape? No.

[loomer]

Didn't they find anyway that these 'hey, have an ultrasound and listen to the doctor describe the baby you're about to murder, slut' laws actually increase the likelihood of a woman going through with the abortion because the doctor's pretty much just 'So, here's a cluster of cells. That could be an arm there. Maybe.'? Obviously the more invasive it gets, it'll start lowering the total number, but unless you do something ridiculous like the mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasounds, it's actually completely counterproductive to lowering the number of abortions. Harder to feel guilt when you've seen proof the fetus is nothing more than some cells at that stage.

[Rahvin]

The bolded bit is basically blackmail or coercion because there is NO medical reason for it to be done as a mandated procedure. Sure, if the qualified medical professional says "we're worried about X, Y or Z and a T-V ultrasound is the best way to confirm", it's on full faith. But mandating it? Note that this would have to be performed on rape victims and the would-be parents who have lost a child in the womb.

Fine, and I agree. But it's not rape. To get an abortion, the woman would have to consent to the procedure, to get that procedure, she would have to consent to the transvaginal probe. Hence, if it happened, it would be by consent. Is it bullshit? Yes. Is it hoops put in front to discourage a woman from getting the procedure? Yes. Is it rape? No.

She has to consent or she cannot have the abortion, which itself is a form of coercion. If we required men and women to have unnecessary rectal probes before gaining employment, would you say the same thing?

The trans-vaginal probe may not be quite exactly the same as rape, but considering that the specific intent is to humiliate, shame, and violate women, I fail to see how the effects are particularly different other than the degree of violence used to provide the coercion.

We don't consider rape to be morally outrageous because it matches a specific dictionary definition; we find rape to be morally outrageous because of the effect it has on the victim. Considering that the effects of this act are similar, I don't have a problem equating it to rape, and I do have a problem with the policy.

As a completely and utterly unnecessary medical procedure, it violates a woman's right to privacy for the government to mandate such a thing in order to proceed with an unrelated medical procedure. I don't think you could find a better definition of unreasonable search than probing around in an unwilling woman's vagina when the state obviously has no compelling need to do so.

[UnderAGreySky]

The bolded bit is basically blackmail or coercion because there is NO medical reason for it to be done as a mandated procedure. Sure, if the qualified medical professional says "we're worried about X, Y or Z and a T-V ultrasound is the best way to confirm", it's on full faith. But mandating it? Note that this would have to be performed on rape victims and the would-be parents who have lost a child in the womb.

Fine, and I agree. But it's not rape. To get an abortion, the woman would have to consent to the procedure, to get that procedure, she would have to consent to the transvaginal probe. Hence, if it happened, it would be by consent. Is it bullshit? Yes. Is it hoops put in front to discourage a woman from getting the procedure? Yes. Is it rape? No.

If A tells B that if B doesn't let A rape them, then A will shoot them with a gun. So B consents to let the rape intercourse happen otherwise they will face consequences that are in all likelihood worse than being rape.

In both your case and mine, B has been sexually violated "with consent" without desiring to do so.

"Consent" in legal terms is synonymous with "want" - if you consent to have sex with someone then it means you want to have sex with them.

[Knife]

She has to consent or she cannot have the abortion, which itself is a form of coercion.

Agreed. But it's not rape.

If we required men and women to have unnecessary rectal probes before gaining employment, would you say the same thing?

Yes. It's very distasteful, unnecessary, not in the interest of the patient, not in the interest of the medical staff. But it's not rape.

The trans-vaginal probe may not be quite exactly the same as rape, but considering that the specific intent is to humiliate, shame, and violate women, I fail to see how the effects are particularly different other than the degree of violence used to provide the coercion.

There is no violence. See, it's this type of derogatory language that is leaving a bad taste in my mouth about all this. I agree with your fundamental position. I agree with the OP's fundamental position. But to use such terms both cheapens the term, is blatant emotional manipulation which to total bullshit and makes me want to not be on your side, and if said enough, might back fire for you and victimize women who do think getting a transvaginal probe is worth it to get an abortion but now she's been told she's raped.

We don't consider rape to be morally outrageous because it matches a specific dictionary definition; we find rape to be morally outrageous because of the effect it has on the victim. Considering that the effects of this act are similar, I don't have a problem equating it to rape, and I do have a problem with the policy.

Are you considering the law to be victimizing the pt or the act of the procedure to be victimizing the pt? I'm curious whether your moral outrage is the unneccissary procedure, no matter what that procedure is, or your moral outrage is due to the procedure involves an invasive act?

As a completely and utterly unnecessary medical procedure, it violates a woman's right to privacy for the government to mandate such a thing in order to proceed with an unrelated medical procedure. I don't think you could find a better definition of unreasonable search than probing around in an unwilling woman's vagina when the state obviously has no compelling need to do so.

See, you start off so reasonable, then go completely to shit. I totally agree that it is an unnecessary procedure. I agree it violates a person's right to privacy. I disagree with that if anyone gets this done, it's unwilling. To have this procedure, she would have to consent to it. I agree she should not have this obstacle to jump through, and I agree that it is there solely to delay and punish her. But, she would have to choose to go through it. The inflammatory language of 'unwilling', 'rape', 'violence against women' is unnecessary and works against your cause. 'Infringes against her rights', 'is medically unnecessary', 'big government putting it's nose where it don't belong', 'making an undue burden for a patient to get a legal procedure' all work fine and are way closer to the truth than rape.

[Knife]

The bolded bit is basically blackmail or coercion because there is NO medical reason for it to be done as a mandated procedure. Sure, if the qualified medical professional says "we're worried about X, Y or Z and a T-V ultrasound is the best way to confirm", it's on full faith. But mandating it? Note that this would have to be performed on rape victims and the would-be parents who have lost a child in the womb.

Fine, and I agree. But it's not rape. To get an abortion, the woman would have to consent to the procedure, to get that procedure, she would have to consent to the transvaginal probe. Hence, if it happened, it would be by consent. Is it bullshit? Yes. Is it hoops put in front to discourage a woman from getting the procedure? Yes. Is it rape? No.

If A tells B that if B doesn't let A rape them, then A will shoot them with a gun. So B consents to let the rape intercourse happen otherwise they will face consequences that are in all likelihood worse than being rape.

In both your case and mine, B has been sexually violated "with consent" without desiring to do so.

"Consent" in legal terms is synonymous with "want" - if you consent to have sex with someone then it means you want to have sex with them.

Jesus Christ, to get a colonscopy, I have to drink some really nasty go-lightly shit. It is very unpleasant and distasteful. It didn't rape me. The only difference is that the trans vaginal probe is not necessary where as the prep for the colon is. One is unnecessary the other one is. A trans vaginal probe is an actual procedure, though not necessary needed in this case, and not by definition rape. Doing an actual procedure when it's not needed is not rape. Negligent and malpractice? Not really even that unless there is damages and injury, I guess you can make an arguement that emotion damage would push it to malpractice, but even then we're talking about situations where they would have to consent to it first.

[Alyeska]

Agreed. But it's not rape.

Yes, it is. Rape is penetration without consent.

Coerced consent is not consent. Especially when you consider that the sole purpose for these "procedures" is designed to humiliate and intimidate.

Rape isn't about sex. It is about domination. These laws actually fit the classic definitions of rape and sexual assault.

It might legally be rape, but it damned well is morally rape. These lawmakers want to humiliate and degrade women for the sole purpose of trying to coerce them into not doing something which is legal. Its rape.

[Broomstick]

Thank you, Anguirus and Serafina. I thought I was being dense.

Yes, Broomstick and Lagmonster: I consider any invasion of a sexual orifice without the consent of the victim as rape.

I don't see coerced consent as consent at all - if a woman is offered a choice between being shot in the head or being raped and "chooses" rape the act is STILL rape as the consent isn't really consent as the term is usually understood.

The reason I asked about collecting evidence in regards to rape is because even thought it is a legal and medical procedure to some people it feels like another rape - it reminds them of what just happened and re-traumatizes them. Some to the point they refuse to allow the collection of evidence even if that means the rapist might go free.

There's a psychological element at play here that is just as important as the physical. To some women the trans-vag probe is no big deal. To others it's a huge deal. When it's a necessary medical procedure there's a motive on the part of the patient to deal with those negative feelings. In this case, the originators of this requirement are hoping to induce those negative feelings.

No, it's not exactly rape, but it's not OK, either.

There is no violence. See, it's this type of derogatory language that is leaving a bad taste in my mouth about all this.

Rape doesn't require violence. It only requires coercion of some sort. Actually, as the cases involving comatose patients getting pregnant show, it doesn't even require that - merely lack of consent.

Then again, maybe we need a better way of expressing degrees of rape - date rape is bad, of course, but a rape where you're left maimed afterward is worse. That, however, is another topic.

[Terralthra]

You're right, Knife, it's not legally rape, it's legally sexual assault, at least in California:

(g) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the
act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to use
the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport
the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that
the perpetrator is a public official, shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight
years.

Let's count the requirements:

• Sexual penetration: check
• Against the woman's will: check
• Threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another: check

Just to be clear, the definition of sexual penetration:

(k) As used in this section:
(1) "Sexual penetration" is the act of causing the penetration,
however slight, of the genital or anal opening of any person or
causing another person to so penetrate the defendant's or another
person's genital or anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal,
gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument,
or device, or by any unknown object.
(2) "Foreign object, substance, instrument, or device" shall
include any part of the body, except a sexual organ.
(3) "Unknown object" shall include any foreign object, substance,
instrument, or device, or any part of the body, including a penis,
when it is not known whether penetration was by a penis or by a
foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any other
part of the body.

The laws as stated explicitly threaten women with jail time for having an abortion (to which they are legally entitled) without the ultrasound procedure, and threaten the doctors with having censure and license revocation. 289g was intended to combat sexual assault by police officers and such, but it applies here too.

[Rahvin]

She has to consent or she cannot have the abortion, which itself is a form of coercion.

Agreed. But it's not rape.

You agree that the procedure involves coercion. The procedure involves penetration of the genitals. Is coerced penetration of the genitals not rape?

The trans-vaginal probe may not be quite exactly the same as rape, but considering that the specific intent is to humiliate, shame, and violate women, I fail to see how the effects are particularly different other than the degree of violence used to provide the coercion.

There is no violence. See, it's this type of derogatory language that is leaving a bad taste in my mouth about all this. I agree with your fundamental position. I agree with the OP's fundamental position. But to use such terms both cheapens the term, is blatant emotional manipulation which to total bullshit and makes me want to not be on your side, and if said enough, might back fire for you and victimize women who do think getting a transvaginal probe is worth it to get an abortion but now she's been told she's raped.

I'm using language that I believe honestly describes the event. A woman who thinks it's [o]okay[/i] to be vaginally probed is obviously also giving her actual consent for the unnecessary procedure, and has no more been raped than a woman who consents to sex.

But those are not the women we're talking about, they aren't victims. The victims are the ones who want or need an abortion, but do not want to first be vaginally probed. Those women are forced to submit to a medical procedure against their will that involves penetration of the vagina when that procedure is totally unrelated to and medically unnecessary for the procedure she actually wants/needs.

The problem is not that every woman seeing an abortion will be raped. The issue is that those who do not want a trans-vaginal ultrasound are unnecessarily forced to receive one prior to receiving an abortion, and forced penetration of the vagina constitutes rape. For those women, they will feel the shame, humiliation, and violation of rape as much as any other victim of that crime, except that she gets the further insult and horror that the State mandated her rape and will seek no justice for her.

We don't consider rape to be morally outrageous because it matches a specific dictionary definition; we find rape to be morally outrageous because of the effect it has on the victim. Considering that the effects of this act are similar, I don't have a problem equating it to rape, and I do have a problem with the policy.

Are you considering the law to be victimizing the pt or the act of the procedure to be victimizing the pt? I'm curious whether your moral outrage is the unneccissary procedure, no matter what that procedure is, or your moral outrage is due to the procedure involves an invasive act?

My outrage stems from the fact that the procedure is unnecessarily invasive yet mandated by the state, and that the intent of the policy is specifically to cause shame, humiliation, and violation in the patient so as to deter her from seeking the procedure in the first place.

If a trans-vaginal ultrasound actually had significant relevance to the actual procedure of an abortion that would improve the patient's chances of a successful and easy recovery, then the State would have at least some reason to mandate it, and I wouldn't be so upset; I'd consider it to be like getting a prostate exam before undergoing prostate surgery, which is rather reasonable.

If the purpose of the policy were not so clearly intended exclusively for the purpose of shaming women into not seeking an abortion that she has every right to seek, I would not be so outraged.

As a completely and utterly unnecessary medical procedure, it violates a woman's right to privacy for the government to mandate such a thing in order to proceed with an unrelated medical procedure. I don't think you could find a better definition of unreasonable search than probing around in an unwilling woman's vagina when the state obviously has no compelling need to do so.

See, you start off so reasonable, then go completely to shit. I totally agree that it is an unnecessary procedure. I agree it violates a person's right to privacy. I disagree with that if anyone gets this done, it's unwilling.

But that's a strawman of my position - I never said that every woman seeking an abortion would be unwilling to also receive a trans-vaginal ultrasound. Some may want the procedure. Some may want to see that the fetus is just a clump of cells before having their abortion. Some may even change their minds, and none of that is morally outrageous at all.

But only those who are unwilling are relevant to the moral dilemma.

To have this procedure, she would have to consent to it. I agree she should not have this obstacle to jump through, and I agree that it is there solely to delay and punish her. But, she would have to choose to go through it. The inflammatory language of 'unwilling', 'rape', 'violence against women' is unnecessary and works against your cause. 'Infringes against her rights', 'is medically unnecessary', 'big government putting it's nose where it don't belong', 'making an undue burden for a patient to get a legal procedure' all work fine and are way closer to the truth than rape.

I don't see a significant distinction beyond one of degree between "infringing her rights" and "violence" in this case.

The reason is simply because I don't see a distinction in the effect on the victim. A woman who does not want a trans-vaginal ultrasound yet is forced to receive one prior to receiving the abortion she does want will feel the same shame, humiliation, and violation as a victim of what you would term "actual" rape. We all agree that "actual" rape can occur without violence ("consensual" statutory rape, as an example, or a boss who uses the threat of termination of employment to receive sexual favors, or a blackmailer who uses the threat of disclosure to coerce sex), and what ties them together is penetration and lack of consent (even if consent is given under duress, which is of course not really consent), as well as feelings of guilt, shame, humiliation, degradation, and violation. For a woman who does not want a trans-vaginal ultrasound, she is coerced (as you agreed) to be vaginally penetrated, and this will be done for the express purpose of making her feel guilty, shamed, humiliated, degraded, and violated.

If it's "not rape," it's so close as to make little ethical difference. Not all rape requires the victim to be physically harmed beyond the act of penetration itself.

[Knife]

Snip.

Ok, fine. So you're hung up about that the actual procedure is invasive to the vagina. If these shit stain legislatures would have made it mandatory to get a transesophogeal echo done before an abortion, would you still be screaming rape? As for me, I would still think it is wrong due to the fact that it is unnecessary and meant only to prolong and make the experience longer and more uncomfortable for the patient, so as they elect not to do it. But I can come to that conclusion without frothing at the mouth and screaming rape.

[Terralthra]

Snip.

Ok, fine. So you're hung up about that the actual procedure is invasive to the vagina. If these shit stain legislatures would have made it mandatory to get a transesophogeal echo done before an abortion, would you still be screaming rape? As for me, I would still think it is wrong due to the fact that it is unnecessary and meant only to prolong and make the experience longer and more uncomfortable for the patient, so as they elect not to do it. But I can come to that conclusion without frothing at the mouth and screaming rape.

No, I wouldn't be screaming rape, because then it wouldn't be sexual assault, it would just be assault.

[Knife]

She has to consent or she cannot have the abortion, which itself is a form of coercion.

Agreed. But it's not rape.

You agree that the procedure involves coercion. The procedure involves penetration of the genitals. Is coerced penetration of the genitals not rape?

Meh, purely from the standpoint of... if you want an abortion you have to do X first, that is not coercion and thus doesn't do away with consent. It is an undue burden, which has zero to do with consent.

The trans-vaginal probe may not be quite exactly the same as rape, but considering that the specific intent is to humiliate, shame, and violate women, I fail to see how the effects are particularly different other than the degree of violence used to provide the coercion.

There is no violence. See, it's this type of derogatory language that is leaving a bad taste in my mouth about all this. I agree with your fundamental position. I agree with the OP's fundamental position. But to use such terms both cheapens the term, is blatant emotional manipulation which to total bullshit and makes me want to not be on your side, and if said enough, might back fire for you and victimize women who do think getting a transvaginal probe is worth it to get an abortion but now she's been told she's raped.

I'm using language that I believe honestly describes the event. A woman who thinks it's [o]okay[/i] to be vaginally probed is obviously also giving her actual consent for the unnecessary procedure, and has no more been raped than a woman who consents to sex.[/quote]

Which would be 100% any of the women that this would happen to. No women is going to go into a Dr. for an abortion and get bum-rushed by a squad of vaginal probers. To get the procedure, she will have to decide if it is worth the unnecessary procedure, and consent to it. Again, I think the procedure is totally unnecessary and put there as a burden for the patient, and therefore wrong. But anyone who actually got to that point, would be consenting to it.

Frothing at the mouth and screaming rape does nothing for your argument, that it should not be a law, and just makes people turned off by it.

But those are not the women we're talking about, they aren't victims. The victims are the ones who want or need an abortion, but do not want to first be vaginally probed. Those women are forced to submit to a medical procedure against their will that involves penetration of the vagina when that procedure is totally unrelated to and medically unnecessary for the procedure she actually wants/needs.

LOL you are silly. If a woman wants an abortion, she is going to have to decide if a trans vaginal probe is worth it to have one. I agree, it shouldn't be there. But, if she decides it is worth it to get the procedure she wants, then she is not doing it against her will. I also see that you're hung up on the fact that they are wanting to stick something up her vagina. My stance is it is wrong, due to being unnecessary, and it doesn't matter if it's a trans-vaginal, trans-rectal, trans-oral, or trans-ear. It's the 'unnecessary' part that's wrong, not what random procedure they choose to put in as a burden on the pt. I would find this bill wrong if they wanted to do a bilirubin test on a woman who wanted an abortion, but I still wouldn't be screaming rape about it.

The problem is not that every woman seeing an abortion will be raped. The issue is that those who do not want a trans-vaginal ultrasound are unnecessarily forced to receive one prior to receiving an abortion, and forced penetration of the vagina constitutes rape.

*sigh* The patient will have to make a descion about if an unnecessary procedure is worth it for the abortion. If she decides it's worth it, then she is not unwilling and not forced. It is an unnecessary burden, meant to make it harder to get an abortion. It does not magically make people unwilling or nonconsenting if they still choose to go through with it.

For those women, they will feel the shame, humiliation, and violation of rape as much as any other victim of that crime, except that she gets the further insult and horror that the State mandated her rape and will seek no justice for her.

So, getting a transvaginal probe for an ultra sound will automatically cause shame, humiliation, and a sense of rape? See, this is what I mean by back firing on you. While a woman may not want a transvaginal probe for an abortion anymore than I want a colonoscopy for chest pain, being told it is rape will do more to instill a sense of shame and humiliation than the actual act. It's a medical procedure, an unnecessary pap smear sucks too, but it's not rape. An unnecessary EKG is an inconvenience, but it's not rape. Tell you what, keep telling people to feel ashamed of something and you just might get them to be, congrats on victimizing people.

We don't consider rape to be morally outrageous because it matches a specific dictionary definition; we find rape to be morally outrageous because of the effect it has on the victim. Considering that the effects of this act are similar, I don't have a problem equating it to rape, and I do have a problem with the policy.

Are you considering the law to be victimizing the pt or the act of the procedure to be victimizing the pt? I'm curious whether your moral outrage is the unneccissary procedure, no matter what that procedure is, or your moral outrage is due to the procedure involves an invasive act?

My outrage stems from the fact that the procedure is unnecessarily invasive yet mandated by the state, and that the intent of the policy is specifically to cause shame, humiliation, and violation in the patient so as to deter her from seeking the procedure in the first place. [/quote]

Fair enough.

If a trans-vaginal ultrasound actually had significant relevance to the actual procedure of an abortion that would improve the patient's chances of a successful and easy recovery, then the State would have at least some reason to mandate it, and I wouldn't be so upset; I'd consider it to be like getting a prostate exam before undergoing prostate surgery, which is rather reasonable.

If the purpose of the policy were not so clearly intended exclusively for the purpose of shaming women into not seeking an abortion that she has every right to seek, I would not be so outraged.

Fair enough, again. The only difference between me and you, then, is the off the deep end inflammatory language.

As a completely and utterly unnecessary medical procedure, it violates a woman's right to privacy for the government to mandate such a thing in order to proceed with an unrelated medical procedure. I don't think you could find a better definition of unreasonable search than probing around in an unwilling woman's vagina when the state obviously has no compelling need to do so.

See, you start off so reasonable, then go completely to shit. I totally agree that it is an unnecessary procedure. I agree it violates a person's right to privacy. I disagree with that if anyone gets this done, it's unwilling.

But that's a strawman of my position - I never said that every woman seeking an abortion would be unwilling to also receive a trans-vaginal ultrasound. Some may want the procedure. Some may want to see that the fetus is just a clump of cells before having their abortion. Some may even change their minds, and none of that is morally outrageous at all.

But only those who are unwilling are relevant to the moral dilemma. [/quote]

And nobody who got that far would be 'unwilling'.

To have this procedure, she would have to consent to it. I agree she should not have this obstacle to jump through, and I agree that it is there solely to delay and punish her. But, she would have to choose to go through it. The inflammatory language of 'unwilling', 'rape', 'violence against women' is unnecessary and works against your cause. 'Infringes against her rights', 'is medically unnecessary', 'big government putting it's nose where it don't belong', 'making an undue burden for a patient to get a legal procedure' all work fine and are way closer to the truth than rape.

I don't see a significant distinction beyond one of degree between "infringing her rights" and "violence" in this case.

The reason is simply because I don't see a distinction in the effect on the victim. A woman who does not want a trans-vaginal ultrasound yet is forced to receive one prior to receiving the abortion she does want will feel the same shame, humiliation, and violation as a victim of what you would term "actual" rape.[/quote]

I think that cheapens both the term, and cheapens the trauma a woman who actually was raped went through to compare it to an unnecessary procedure. Again, it's not like a group of people will jump out of the closet and ram a probe up a prospective patient. As with all procedures, a Dr. will still have to explain it to the pt, what it entails, what risks are involved, his recommendations, and then have her sign a consent form. While it is an undue burden to the woman, it is nothing like being attacked and sexually assaulted against her will.

We all agree that "actual" rape can occur without violence ("consensual" statutory rape, as an example, or a boss who uses the threat of termination of employment to receive sexual favors, or a blackmailer who uses the threat of disclosure to coerce sex), and what ties them together is penetration and lack of consent (even if consent is given under duress, which is of course not really consent), as well as feelings of guilt, shame, humiliation, degradation, and violation. For a woman who does not want a trans-vaginal ultrasound, she is coerced (as you agreed) to be vaginally penetrated, and this will be done for the express purpose of making her feel guilty, shamed, humiliated, degraded, and violated.

If it's "not rape," it's so close as to make little ethical difference. Not all rape requires the victim to be physically harmed beyond the act of penetration itself.

To compare it with statutory rape, you are now telling women who think it is worth a transvaginal probe that they are not able to choose for themselves. You are also taking that coercion pretty far and thin. Plenty of medical procedures are done because it was strongly recommended by family or staff, which is coercion, but still is consent. For fucks sake, all the women in the world who went in for a transvaginal ultrasound over the last few days should now start feeling shame and humiliation at the procedure, to here you goof balls yelling about it. I think you're every bit as wrapped up in the vagina part as the shit heads who wrote the damn bill.

[Terralthra]

*sigh* The patient will have to make a descion about if an unnecessary procedure is worth it for the abortion. If she decides it's worth it, then she is not unwilling and not forced. It is an unnecessary burden, meant to make it harder to get an abortion. It does not magically make people unwilling or nonconsenting if they still choose to go through with it.

Exactly! It's just like if a woman wants to get a job. The hiring manager will tell her that before he can give her a job she has to sleep with him. If she decides it's worth it, then she is not unwilling and not forced.

[Anguirus]

For fucks sake, all the women in the world who went in for a transvaginal ultrasound over the last few days should now start feeling shame and humiliation at the procedure, to here you goof balls yelling about it.

I'm not sure all the women in the world who went in for a transvaginal ultrasound are prepared to let us tell them what they think.

I think you're every bit as wrapped up in the vagina part as the shit heads who wrote the damn bill.

This sentence does not have a clear meaning.

It all hinges on this...

Meh, purely from the standpoint of... if you want an abortion you have to do X first, that is not coercion and thus doesn't do away with consent.

I would like to see you explain why it is not. A woman has a right to an abortion, under the right to privacy, as established by Roe vs. Wade. Other rights are not contingent upon penetration.

[Terralthra]

Where Is The Physician Outrage?

Right. Here.

I’m speaking, of course, about the required-transvaginal-ultrasound thing that seems to be the flavor-of-the-month in politics.

I do not care what your personal politics are. I think we can all agree that my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins.

I do not feel that it is reactionary or even inaccurate to describe an unwanted, non-indicated transvaginal ultrasound as “rape”. If I insert ANY object into ANY orifice without informed consent, it is rape. And coercion of any kind negates consent, informed or otherwise.

In all of the discussion and all of the outrage and all of the Doonesbury comics, I find it interesting that we physicians are relatively silent.

After all, it’s our hands that will supposedly be used to insert medical equipment (tools of HEALING, for the sake of all that is good and holy) into the vaginas of coerced women.

Fellow physicians, once again we are being used as tools to screw people over. This time, it’s the politicians who want to use us to implement their morally reprehensible legislation. They want to use our ultrasound machines to invade women’s bodies, and they want our hands to be at the controls.

Coerced and invaded women, you have a problem with that? Blame us evil doctors. We are such deliciously silent scapegoats.

It is our responsibility, as always, to protect our patients from things that would harm them. Therefore, as physicians, it is our duty to refuse to perform a medical procedure that is not medically indicated. Any medical procedure. Whatever the pseudo-justification.

It’s time for a little old-fashioned civil disobedience.

Here are a few steps we can take as physicians to protect our patients from legislation such as this.

1) Just don’t comply. No matter how much our autonomy as physicians has been eroded, we still have control of what our hands do and do not do with a transvaginal ultrasound wand. If this legislation is completely ignored by the people who are supposed to implement it, it will soon be worth less than the paper it is written on.

2) Reinforce patient autonomy. It does not matter what a politician says. A woman is in charge of determining what does and what does not go into her body. If she WANTS a transvaginal ultrasound, fine. If it’s medically indicated, fine… have that discussion with her. We have informed consent for a reason. If she has to be forced to get a transvaginal ultrasound through coercion or overly impassioned argument or implied threats of withdrawal of care, that is NOT FINE.

Our position is to recommend medically-indicated tests and treatments that have a favorable benefit-to-harm ratio… and it is up to the patient to decide what she will and will not allow. Period. Politicians do not have any role in this process. NO ONE has a role in this process but the patient and her physician. If anyone tries to get in the way of that, it is our duty to run interference.

3) If you are forced to document a non-indicated transvaginal ultrasound because of this legislation, document that the patient refused the procedure or that it was not medically indicated. (Because both of those are true.) Hell, document that you attempted but the patient kicked you in the nose, if you have to.

4) If you are forced to enter an image of the ultrasound itself into the patient chart, ultrasound the bedsheets and enter that picture with a comment of “poor acoustic window”. If you’re really gutsy, enter a comment of “poor acoustic window…plus, I’m not a rapist.” (I was going to propose repeatedly entering a single identical image in affected patient’s charts nationwide, as a recognizable visual protest…but I don’t have an ultrasound image that I own to the point that I could offer it for that purpose.)

5) Do anything else you can think of to protect your patients and the integrity of the medical profession. IN THAT ORDER. We already know how vulnerable patients can be; we invisibly protect them on a daily basis from all kinds of dangers inside and outside of the hospital. Their safety is our responsibility, and we practically kill ourselves to ensure it at all costs. But it’s also our responsibility to guard the practice of medicine from people who would hijack our tools of healing for their own political or monetary gain.

In recent years, we have been abject failures in this responsibility, and untold numbers of people have gleefully taken advantage of that. Silently allowing a politician to manipulate our medical decision-making for the purposes of an ideological goal erodes any tiny scrap of trust we might have left.

It comes down to this: When the community has failed a patient by voting an ideologue into office…When the ideologue has failed the patient by writing legislation in his own interest instead of in the patient’s…When the legislative system has failed the patient by allowing the legislation to be considered… When the government has failed the patient by allowing something like this to be signed into law… We as physicians cannot and must not fail our patients by ducking our heads and meekly doing as we’re told.

Because we are their last line of defense.

[The Yosemite Bear]

after all I recall that the docs are supposed "First do No Harm" of course that oath is also the same root source as the Term Hypocrit, as he did give Socrates poison....

[Terralthra]

No. Hypocrite and Hippocrates do not come from the same root word. Hypocrites comes from a different Greek root entirely.

[Thanas]

after all I recall that the docs are supposed "First do No Harm" of course that oath is also the same root source as the Term Hypocrit, as he did give Socrates poison....

No, it is not. Do at least some fact-checking before you post, goddamn it.

[Lagmonster]

Just to be clear, the definition of sexual penetration:

(k) As used in this section:
(1) "Sexual penetration" is the act of causing the penetration,
however slight, of the genital or anal opening of any person or
causing another person to so penetrate the defendant's or another
person's genital or anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal,
gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument,
or device, or by any unknown object.

Problem: the law says (as it should) "for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse". There's no way you can seriously argue that the doctor or the state has the motive of either sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse by mandating the procedure. You're just fucking wrong.

In my opinion, expanding your definitions to say that all unwanted genital contact is rape is just fucking crazy, because you'd get to the point where a guy kicking you in the crotch during a fight is considered a sex offender.

[Lagmonster]

The victims are the ones who want or need an abortion, but do not want to first be vaginally probed. Those women are forced to submit to a medical procedure against their will that involves penetration of the vagina when that procedure is totally unrelated to and medically unnecessary for the procedure she actually wants/needs.

So you agree with me then, that saying "this is rape" without adding "if it happened to me" is stupid, because the definition is subjective to the person experiencing it.

As an aside, most of the fighting in this thread seems to hinge on whether the word 'rape' does or does not need to require sex to be part of the motive. I'd say that motive in this case makes it a form of emotional abuse - trying to control women by making them feel like they're committing infanticide. But that doesn't really sound as serious as 'rape' when you say it out loud.

There are almost some parallels to the TSA patdowns here, I feel. I've heard some people also use the word 'rape' when they get searched during these security processes (many of which I hear are themselves unnecessary and overkill compared to the risks involved), but I wonder that they're not just using the strongest and most accusatory word they know to express the feeling of disgust from being humilated and powerless. It's almost a language problem; coerced touching in the interest of social control really needs its own word, something short and firm that people can just spit out when they're angry.

[Lagmonster]

Rape isn't about sex. It is about domination.

Certainly rape can be a component of abuse, but the idea that rape isn't about sex, or that sex (particularly male sexuality) isn't inherently predatory in nature, is a product of the neofeminist movement and - in my opinion - full of shit.

These laws actually fit the classic definitions of rape and sexual assault.

If you really want a classical view, my understanding is that originally, rape was a form of theft.

[CarsonPalmer]

Rape isn't about sex. It is about domination.

Certainly rape can be a component of abuse, but the idea that rape isn't about sex, or that sex (particularly male sexuality) isn't inherently predatory in nature, is a product of the neofeminist movement and - in my opinion - full of shit.[/QUOTE]

Well, your opinion is fucking wrong (depending on who we're talking about).

I don't even understand your second part about male sexuality being "inherently predatory in nature", but there are studies that have shown that a significant number of rapists do not climax during the act. I should say, though, that there are certain types of rape that are probably almost entirely about sex-taking advantage of a girl who is unable to consent probably has everything to do with sex; on the other hand, the serial rapist who is jumping out of bushes is probably doing it for reasons of power.

[Lagmonster]

I don't even understand your second part about male sexuality being "inherently predatory in nature",

You don't understand it...but you're going to argue against it.

...but there are studies that have shown that a significant number of rapists do not climax during the act.

So? I won't rule out that you can have rape without climaxing; that's not my point. I'm saying that (in the absence of contrary evidence) I don't believe you can have rape without some kind of sexual motive.

I should say, though, that there are certain types of rape that are probably almost entirely about sex-taking advantage of a girl who is unable to consent probably has everything to do with sex; on the other hand, the serial rapist who is jumping out of bushes is probably doing it for reasons of power.

...which may stem from warped views on sexuality, or sexual obsession, or sexual frustration. The 'rape for the sake of dominating women' isn't psychologically impossible, but as a mainstream answer it is an extension of the 'social construction of gender' bullshit that came out of the neofeminist (or third-wave feminism, I believe it's called) thinking I was talking about.