Virginia sez: "Ultrasound for women = Rectal exam for men"

[Faqa]

Linkage

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

"We need some gender equity here," she told HuffPost. "The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we're going to do that to women, why not do that to men?"

The Republican-controlled senate narrowly rejected the amendment Monday by a vote of 21 to 19, but passed the mandatory ultrasound bill in a voice vote. A similar bill in Texas, which physicians say has caused a "bureaucratic nightmare," is currently being challenged in court.

Howell said she is not surprised her amendment failed.

"This is more of a message type of an amendment, so I was pleased to get 19 votes," she said.

She pointed out that there are only seven women in the Virginia senate, and six of them voted in favor of her amendment, along with 13 male senators. Sen. Jill Vogel (R-Fauquier County), the sponsor of the mandatory ultrasound bill, voted against it.

“I do believe that erectile dysfunction in this context is different from pregnancy,” she said on the senate floor.

The Senate will formally vote on the mandatory ultrasound bill on Tuesday.

On the one hand - HA!

On the other hand, even as an act of pure protest, that's only slightly more dignified than poo-flinging. Is this what U.S political discourse has come to?

[dragon]

Having had a rectal exam (family history of colon cancer) I can honestysay it wasn't bad only a bit uncomfortable. Granted tht was with a german doctor so no telling if its different here.

[Raw Shark]

Having had a rectal exam (family history of colon cancer) I can honestysay it wasn't bad only a bit uncomfortable. Granted tht was with a german doctor so no telling if its different here.

Ultrasounds aren't that traumatic, either. The point is that it's completely unnecessary and at the patient's expense.

[Grumman]

It's a contemptible tactic anyway. Even an idiot knows why social conservatives oppose abortion: because they don't want you to kill the fetus. Her rider has nothing to do with the reasoning behind the bill, it's just meant to make the law worse.

[eion]

It's a contemptible tactic anyway. Even an idiot knows why social conservatives oppose abortion: because they don't want you to kill the fetus. Her rider has nothing to do with the reasoning behind the bill, it's just meant to make the law worse.

I don't think it matters to women all that much how their right to control over their bodies is protected, just that it is. If that requires an analogy be made so that men who are idiots can understand how pointless and potentially injurious a mandatory ultrasound before an abortion is, so be it.

If she'd really wanted to make the law worse, and perhaps make her point at the same time, she could have introduced an amendment mandating vasectomies for all men who impregnate a woman who later gets an abortion.

[Zed]

It's a contemptible tactic anyway. Even an idiot knows why social conservatives oppose abortion: because they don't want you to kill the fetus. Her rider has nothing to do with the reasoning behind the bill, it's just meant to make the law worse.

I don't think it matters to women all that much how their right to control over their bodies is protected, just that it is. If that requires an analogy be made so that men who are idiots can understand how pointless and potentially injurious a mandatory ultrasound before an abortion is, so be it.

If she'd really wanted to make the law worse, and perhaps make her point at the same time, she could have introduced an amendment mandating vasectomies for all men who impregnate a woman who later gets an abortion.

Mandating ultrasounds, while a bad idea, at least has a plausible motive: to give women who're considering an abortion pause, asking for extra consideration before they end the life of a soon-to-be-human-being. Rectal exams have no such plausible motive.

[Flagg]

It's a contemptible tactic anyway. Even an idiot knows why social conservatives oppose abortion: because they don't want you to kill the fetus. Her rider has nothing to do with the reasoning behind the bill, it's just meant to make the law worse.

I don't think it matters to women all that much how their right to control over their bodies is protected, just that it is. If that requires an analogy be made so that men who are idiots can understand how pointless and potentially injurious a mandatory ultrasound before an abortion is, so be it.

If she'd really wanted to make the law worse, and perhaps make her point at the same time, she could have introduced an amendment mandating vasectomies for all men who impregnate a woman who later gets an abortion.

Mandating ultrasounds, while a bad idea, at least has a plausible motive: to give women who're considering an abortion pause, asking for extra consideration before they end the life of a soon-to-be-human-being. Rectal exams have no such plausible motive.

Yes they do, you imbecile. They can detect problems with a mans prostate that could be the cause of impotence.

[Serafina]

Mandating ultrasounds, while a bad idea, at least has a plausible motive: to give women who're considering an abortion pause, asking for extra consideration before they end the life of a soon-to-be-human-being. Rectal exams have no such plausible motive.

"Outlawing abortions, while a bad idea, at least has a plausible motive: preventing women from ending the life of a soon-to-be-human-being".
"Prohibiting condoms, while a bad idea, at least has a plausible motive: preventing a soon-to-be-human-being from not being conceived".

Or in other words: Fuck you, misogynistic asshole.
The entire purpose of these forced ultrasounds is guilt-trip women into having a child she doesn't want to have. A "soon-to-be-human-being" has no value worth violating a womans rights.

[Ryan Thunder]

Or in other words: Fuck you, misogynistic asshole.

While I'm inclined to agree with you I don't think Zed's being a misogynistic asshole, just explaining their logic.

[Zed]

Yes they do, you imbecile. They can detect problems with a mans prostate that could be the cause of impotence.

Or in other words: Fuck you, misogynistic asshole.
The entire purpose of these forced ultrasounds is guilt-trip women into having a child she doesn't want to have. A "soon-to-be-human-being" has no value worth violating a womans rights.

Both of these objections reduce to the same claim: the value of the life of a human fetus is negligible compared to the value of a woman's rights over her own body. The proposed amendment concerning male rectal exams tries to form a male equivalent, but it fails because it neglects the notion of another life being at stake. As such, the proposed amendment makes a strawman of the pro-life position.

Personally, I'm all for abortion being legal (regardless of your assumptions and insults). But I prefer to understand where an opponent's coming from during a discussion; all that amendments such as the one proposed in the original post will do is fire up the pro-life base even more, causing them to think "look how dumb the pro-choicers are!".

[Flagg]

Moron, prostate cancer can cause impotence. Viagra can cause a heart attack (which is why cardiac stress tests are also included in the amendment). This amendment is designed to protect actual human life in the form of men who cannot attain erections who may be suffering from prostate cancer or heart problems as opposed to guilt tripping women who want to remove a parasite in a perfectly legal procedure.

[Grumman]

This amendment is designed to protect actual human life in the form of men who cannot attain erections who may be suffering from prostate cancer or heart problems...

Not even the author believes that. The amendment was designed to be an unpalatable law. That was its purpose, to destroy the bill it was to be attached to, not to save lives.

[Flagg]

This amendment is designed to protect actual human life in the form of men who cannot attain erections who may be suffering from prostate cancer or heart problems...

Not even the author believes that. The amendment was designed to be an unpalatable law. That was its purpose, to destroy the bill it was to be attached to, not to save lives.

Ok allow me to reword it: It would have the effect of protecting actual human life in the form of men who cannot attain erections who may be suffering from prostate cancer or heart problems.

[Zed]

While all of that might be true, it has nothing to do with abortion. There are two seperate arguments to be made here:

- Mandating women to have an ultrasound before terminating a pregnancy is a bad idea.
- Mandating men to have a rectal examination before proscribing erectile dysfunction medication is a good idea.

These arguments aren't at all similar, because of the reasons outlined above.

[Flagg]

While all of that might be true, it has nothing to do with abortion. There are two seperate arguments to be made here:

- Mandating women to have an ultrasound before terminating a pregnancy is a bad idea.
- Mandating men to have a rectal examination before proscribing erectile dysfunction medication is a good idea.

These arguments aren't at all similar, because of the reasons outlined above.

What reasons outlined above? They both do in fact share the same goal: Protecting human life. And both of them are actually bad ideas, however one inflicts emotional trauma on someone already going through emotional trauma and the other simply mandates exams doctors should already be giving to men they are going to prescribe boner pills to. The reason it's a bad idea? It gets between a patient and their doctor.

[Simon_Jester]

This amendment is designed to protect actual human life in the form of men who cannot attain erections who may be suffering from prostate cancer or heart problems...

Not even the author believes that. The amendment was designed to be an unpalatable law. That was its purpose, to destroy the bill it was to be attached to, not to save lives.

Yes, but it was also designed to be a "turnabout is fair play" amendment. The criticism here is that the mostly-male Virginia legislature does not understand that this kind of hoop-jumping before abortions can be costly, humiliating, and time-consuming, and they have no real understanding of what they are mandating the women go through.

Because of that criticism, it makes sense to propose a mirror-image version of the law that applies to men: something humiliating, costly, and time-consuming, as a condition for something that most men would like to have available as a matter of right.

The intent is to make the bill unpalatable for men, because the men are now contemplating something as unpleasant as what women would have to face as a result of the bill.

[Zed]

While all of that might be true, it has nothing to do with abortion. There are two seperate arguments to be made here:

- Mandating women to have an ultrasound before terminating a pregnancy is a bad idea.
- Mandating men to have a rectal examination before proscribing erectile dysfunction medication is a good idea.

These arguments aren't at all similar, because of the reasons outlined above.

What reasons outlined above? They both do in fact share the same goal: Protecting human life. And both of them are actually bad ideas, however one inflicts emotional trauma on someone already going through emotional trauma and the other simply mandates exams doctors should already be giving to men they are going to prescribe boner pills to. The reason it's a bad idea? It gets between a patient and their doctor.

The first issue is an issue of government intervention versus individual liberty as well as an issue of the rights of a fetus versus the rights of the women carrying that fetus. The second issue is only an issue of government intervention versus individual liberty. In other words, the difference between the two cases is the question: "does a woman's right to control her own body override a fetus' right to life" - or even the question "does a fetus even have a right to life?" The point is that the proposed amendment ignores this issue entirely.

Certainly, it's a bad idea to mandate ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion. After all, it presumes that abortion's something women do without any thought. But honestly, the amendment that was proposed has really very little to do with why it's a bad idea. The proposed amendment is similar only with regard to the bodily invasion; it differs in both motivation and in emotional impact.

[Simon_Jester]

The first issue is an issue of government intervention versus individual liberty as well as an issue of the rights of a fetus versus the rights of the women carrying that fetus. The second issue is only an issue of government intervention versus individual liberty. In other words, the difference between the two cases is the question: "does a woman's right to control her own body override a fetus' right to life" - or even the question "does a fetus even have a right to life?" The point is that the proposed amendment ignores this issue entirely.

Certainly, it's a bad idea to mandate ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion. After all, it presumes that abortion's something women do without any thought. But honestly, the amendment that was proposed has really very little to do with why it's a bad idea. The proposed amendment is similar only with regard to the bodily invasion; it differs in both motivation and in emotional impact.

Unless male pregnancies suddenly start happening, it's the closest anyone can come- and it at least takes on one of the reasons why this sort of law keeps getting passed, especially by male legislators.

[Flagg]

While all of that might be true, it has nothing to do with abortion. There are two seperate arguments to be made here:

- Mandating women to have an ultrasound before terminating a pregnancy is a bad idea.
- Mandating men to have a rectal examination before proscribing erectile dysfunction medication is a good idea.

These arguments aren't at all similar, because of the reasons outlined above.

What reasons outlined above? They both do in fact share the same goal: Protecting human life. And both of them are actually bad ideas, however one inflicts emotional trauma on someone already going through emotional trauma and the other simply mandates exams doctors should already be giving to men they are going to prescribe boner pills to. The reason it's a bad idea? It gets between a patient and their doctor.

The first issue is an issue of government intervention versus individual liberty as well as an issue of the rights of a fetus versus the rights of the women carrying that fetus. The second issue is only an issue of government intervention versus individual liberty. In other words, the difference between the two cases is the question: "does a woman's right to control her own body override a fetus' right to life" - or even the question "does a fetus even have a right to life?" The point is that the proposed amendment ignores this issue entirely.

Certainly, it's a bad idea to mandate ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion. After all, it presumes that abortion's something women do without any thought. But honestly, the amendment that was proposed has really very little to do with why it's a bad idea. The proposed amendment is similar only with regard to the bodily invasion; it differs in both motivation and in emotional impact.

And why is motivation important when it would have the actual effect of protecting human life as opposed to a clump of cells?

[Simon_Jester]

Dammit, Flagg...

Look, let's not dance around, this amendment wasn't proposed because Senator Howell was concerned about the risk to the lives of men with Viagra prescriptions. It was a mirror-image attempt- an imperfect mirror.

I think it stands legitimately as a mirror. It's a traditional parliamentary tactic to call attention to issues with an unpalatable bill or amendment. Better to address it on those grounds, anyway, rather than to affect a disingenuous concern for men's health issues.

[Flagg]

You can argue motivation all you want. My point is that the legislation this amendment was added to causes emotional trauma and the amendment in question does not do so and has the benefit of actually providing for mens health. In fact I've changed my position and think that the amendment in question should be passed as legislation of its own and would fully support its implementation.

[Chirios]

On the one hand - HA!

On the other hand, even as an act of pure protest, that's only slightly more dignified than poo-flinging. Is this what U.S political discourse has come to?

I suppose you could argue that the cardiac stress test might be helpful, I mean, if you have undiagnosed heart problems then using viagra wouldn't be safe. No justification for the rectal exam though.

[Flagg]

On the one hand - HA!

On the other hand, even as an act of pure protest, that's only slightly more dignified than poo-flinging. Is this what U.S political discourse has come to?

I suppose you could argue that the cardiac stress test might be helpful, I mean, if you have undiagnosed heart problems then using viagra wouldn't be safe. No justification for the rectal exam though.

Umm, yes there is. If you'd bothered to have read the thread you'd have seen numerous times that rectal exams can detect prostate problems.

[Solauren]

I have to wonder if this is a backhand swipe at the people that want this bill to pass, as if to say 'well, since you all need Viagra, before you get it, I'm making you get your asses fingered'.

[GeorGeMaRTin]

It's a contemptible tactic anyway. Even an idiot knows why social conservatives oppose abortion: because they don't want you to kill the fetus. Her rider has nothing to do with the reasoning behind the bill, it's just meant to make the law worse.