Sticking probes up women's vaginas w/o their consent law alive and well in Alabama

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,100
2,154
136
Wow

The bill from Clay Scofield, R-Guntersville, passed out of committee with a vote of 4-to-1 last week. Sen. Linda Coleman, D-Birmingham, voted against it.

The bill calls for the ultrasounds to be done either vaginally or with an abdominal scan, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly. The doctor also would be required to describe the images to the woman.

Scofield said he hopes that, if signed into law, his bill will stop some abortions. Though the bill states a woman can look away from the ultrasound image, Scofield wants her to see it.

“So she sees that this is not just a clump of cells as she is told,” he said. “She will see the shape of the infant. And hopefully, she will choose to keep the child.”

The procedure would not be required in the case of a woman seeking an abortion to save her own life. But the bill doesn’t allow victims of sexual assault to opt out of the ultrasound.

Physicians who don’t perform the required ultrasound could be convicted of a Class C felony, which is punishable with between two and 20 years in prison. The bill also says the doctor could be sued by the unborn child’s father or grandparents.

http://timesdaily.com/stories/Ultrasounds-before-abortions,187883


Apparently he has now changed his mind and is amending the bill.

Scofield in an interview said that was not his intent, and that he planned to rewrite the bill so that the woman could decide whether to have an abdominal or vaginal transducer, or wand, used on her.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/02/senator_plans_rewrite_of_ultra.html
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
Just like the GOP I can come up a rationale allowing legistarors to force medical procedures from congressional halls.

Sometimes ED is mental. The forced anal probe will be a prostate tickle, so the doctor will have to stick his finger up your ass. Prostate tickling sometimes caused spontaneous erections. In this way the government can decide if you really need that Viagra.

See where I'm going with this...

Plus we'll know if you are gay, so President Santorum can stop you from all that freedom-hating ass-play that is destroying this country's social fabric.

Viagra needs to be reserved for the church-going people of faith so they create the strong families of 10 or 12 children we will need to repel the invasion of muslims, gays and liberals that is drving this country towards a debt crisis.
If vaginal/rectal penetration is what needs to be done to get this country off its ass and back on its feet, then by God, that's what the founding fathers would have wanted us to be doing.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Viagra needs to be reserved for the church-going people of faith so they create the strong families of 10 or 12 children we will need to repel the invasion of muslims, gays and liberals that is drving this country towards a debt crisis.

You forgot those damn Mormons....

425.theduggars.lc.081309.jpg
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Steve: What am I gonna do?!
Hayley: Whatever you want. You know, a pregnant boy still has the right to choose.
Stan: Not in this house he doesn't. We're conservatives! And the one way we don't like to kill things is that way!
/American Dad
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,956
27,638
136
Here is a brilliant protest sign to Oklahoma's proposed personhood law. This can be applied to all the forced ultrasound, personhood bills and the Blunt amendment the GOP is pushing across the country...

w300-0fd2f72c942257e80fbfec7b69e3d972.jpg
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
So you would consider mandated rectal probes for Viagra prescriptions consensual since the prescription is elective?
Yes, that's what elective means and if you know going into it there is a rectal exam then it is consensual, whether it's agreeable or not.
The vaginal ultrasound isn't elective, it's a mandatory part of an elective procedure. That seems like a very significant difference. Your objection is splitting hairs.
I would disagree and say you are. Any number of processes one elects to subject them to carry with them mandatory components they probably don't like.

If I elect to get an ipad 3 the day of release and the lineup is 5 hours long in the freezing cold is it fair to say Apple forced me to stand in the cold for 5 hours to buy an ipad? It's not like I had no choice.
If they hadn't been so slutty, this wouldn't be happening to them.

Right?
You're not very experienced at this, are you?

The whole forced penetration of a woman's vagina without her consent. is demonstrably wrong, false, lie. She is by virtue of being in the office consenting to a known aspect of the procedure and can back out of it at any time. If she couldn't, that would be without consent. To actually do this without her consent is tantamount to rape and no medical professional is going to say "ha! Got you now, you're in here, did you know I'm now going to probe you whether you like it or not?" It's such hyperbole nonsense.
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,202
6
81
Yeah, calling this 'elective' is rather ridiculous. Let's say you have a potentially life-changing choice that you have to make. You think you have cancer, your doctor thinks you have cancer, and you want to get an MRI to check. Now, you don't have to get an MRI, you just want one, but since that is a choice, the government can also legislate that you have to get a colonoscope beforehand since it is, after all, a choice to get the MRI in the first place, right?

......yeah, that sounds terrible.....

And before the "But an abortion is elective while looking for cancer is a medical issue," deciding whether or not you want to bring a kid into the world is sure as **** a medical issue. For yourself, for your family, for the future of the kid (if you decide to have it), etc. Sometimes the most important choice for someone to make for a kid is the choice not to have one, so the saying goes.

I also find it funny that republicans try so hard to reverse the greatest crimefighting measure ever enacted by the US govt (roe v wade)........of course, that isn't really politically correct......
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,956
27,638
136
Yes, that's what elective means and if you know going into it there is a rectal exam then it is consensual, whether it's agreeable or not.I would disagree and say you are. Any number of processes one elects to subject them to carry with them mandatory components they probably don't like.

If I elect to get an ipad 3 the day of release and the lineup is 5 hours long in the freezing cold is it fair to say Apple forced me to stand in the cold for 5 hours to buy an ipad? It's not like I had no choice.You're not very experienced at this, are you?

The whole forced penetration of a woman's vagina without her consent. is demonstrably wrong, false, lie. She is by virtue of being in the office consenting to a known aspect of the procedure and can back out of it at any time. If she couldn't, that would be without consent. To actually do this without her consent is tantamount to rape and no medical professional is going to say "ha! Got you now, you're in here, did you know I'm now going to probe you whether you like it or not?" It's such hyperbole nonsense.

So basically you are in favor of the government mandating a medical procedure for which doctors say is unnecessary. You're fine with this??
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Yes, that's what elective means and if you know going into it there is a rectal exam then it is consensual, whether it's agreeable or not.I would disagree and say you are. Any number of processes one elects to subject them to carry with them mandatory components they probably don't like.

If I elect to get an ipad 3 the day of release and the lineup is 5 hours long in the freezing cold is it fair to say Apple forced me to stand in the cold for 5 hours to buy an ipad? It's not like I had no choice.You're not very experienced at this, are you?

The whole forced penetration of a woman's vagina without her consent. is demonstrably wrong, false, lie. She is by virtue of being in the office consenting to a known aspect of the procedure and can back out of it at any time. If she couldn't, that would be without consent. To actually do this without her consent is tantamount to rape and no medical professional is going to say "ha! Got you now, you're in here, did you know I'm now going to probe you whether you like it or not?" It's such hyperbole nonsense.
So, as long as the woman doesn't want an abortion on launch day, she can just wait a week and won't have a probe needlessly inserted in her vagina?

I missed that part of the legislation, but you're right, it's totally reasonable.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
So basically you are in favor of the government mandating a medical procedure for which doctors say is unnecessary. You're fine with this??
I am not surprised at all that people are reading further into what I say.

You'll note if you bother to read my writings in this thread I have stated no position on the merits of this procedure at all. I've simply said it's not occurring without consent; the quote in the original article is glaringly incorrect.
So, as long as the woman doesn't want an abortion on launch day, she can just wait a week and won't have a probe needlessly inserted in her vagina?

I missed that part of the legislation, but you're right, it's totally reasonable.
Congrats, you're at least the third to misread. I won't defend this law. I don't really care about it and it sounds silly. But it's disingenuous to use words like "without consent" as if it's damn near rape. It surely is not and it surely IS with consent as it is an elective (in virtually all cases) procedure.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,956
27,638
136
I am not surprised at all that people are reading further into what I say.

You'll note if you bother to read my writings in this thread I have stated no position on the merits of this procedure at all. I've simply said it's not occurring without consent; the quote in the original article is glaringly incorrect.Congrats, you're at least the third to misread. I won't defend this law. I don't really care about it and it sounds silly. But it's disingenuous to use words like "without consent" as if it's damn near rape. It surely is not and it surely IS with consent as it is an elective (in virtually all cases) procedure.

coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance

Ok it's not occuring without consent
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Congrats, you're at least the third to misread. I won't defend this law. I don't really care about it and it sounds silly. But it's disingenuous to use words like "without consent" as if it's damn near rape. It surely is not and it surely IS with consent as it is an elective (in virtually all cases) procedure.

In common usage, it's fair to interpret consent as being free and uncoerced. It's not accurate to describe this legislation as being 'non-coercive'. In fact coercion is precisely the intent of this, and most other anti-abortion legislation.
So while you can make a hair-splitting argument that 'without consent' is too strong a statement, it is functionally accurate.

The law isn't 'silly'. It's a deliberate attempt to use a threat of humiliation to prevent women from engaging in a perfectly legal activity.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
But it's disingenuous to use words like "without consent" as if it's damn near rape. It surely is not and it surely IS with consent as it is an elective (in virtually all cases) procedure.

No, it's not, and you're dead wrong.

The legislation artificially and forcibly ties Y with X, so that if I want/need to have X done, I have no choice but to submit to Y, regardless of whether or not I actually want Y.

That's not consent.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I find the notion of government intrusion into medical care abhorrent. Especially mandating unneeded procedures essentially as a punitive measure for doing something perfectly legal that the legislature doesn't approve of is sick. Anyone who favors something like this is screwed in the head.
Pretty much this. If a woman doesn't realize that abortion is killing a living baby, her genes really don't need to swim in the gene pool. Especially since the whole point of abortion is to kill the baby.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Here is a brilliant protest sign to Oklahoma's proposed personhood law. This can be applied to all the forced ultrasound, personhood bills and the Blunt amendment the GOP is pushing across the country...

w300-0fd2f72c942257e80fbfec7b69e3d972.jpg
Funny, I'd bet money they want government to pay for their womb's medical needs . . .

And I seriously doubt that woman could get a Senator. Maybe a state senator . . .
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,475
6,896
136
Seems to me the fundamentalists want their own version of Sharia codified into law right here at home in the USA. I mean, if given the opportunity, isn't the creation of a theocratic form of gov't the logical end result of their efforts? Where does it end?

I thought it was common knowledge that the one great gift God gave each and every one of us was the ability to make choices. Yet, here we have the fundamentalsit evangelicals making every effort to take that gift away because, what, they know what's good for the rest of us and we can't be trusted to have that God-given gift? Or that God has given them the power to dictate to all others how they should "fundamentally" follow Christ's teachings?

Our constitution and our bill of rights also gives us the right to choose how we want to live our lives so long as we follow the laws of the land that, up 'til now is mostly devoid of single issue theocratic influences.

So what of the Corporate raiders, and people like the Koch's that these evangelicals stand with? What of the heartless politicians these evangelicals vote into office that are bent on destroying the middle class and deny the poor a chance for a better life, all for making themselves and their benefactors rich beyond their wildest dreams? Why aren't these evangelicals going after them and their "un-christian-like" behavior? So much easier to pick on a sixteen year old clueless child that made a child-like mistake instead of their friends the robber barons that want to also own our lives but in a very "unchristian-like" way that these fundametalists somehow tolerate and/or conveniently ignore?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
this country has jumped the shark.
I agree, in so many ways. You must get an ultrasound - but you don't have to look at it. So the point would be . . .

It's like making a law that you have to make an appointment with an adoption agency, but you don't have to go.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
219
106
This is just a big law suit waiting to happen. Ought to be interesting! But, I think once they start suing the crap out of the state "GOD" is going to lose.
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
F
And I seriously doubt that woman could get a Senator. Maybe a state senator . . .

Lol that is exactly what I was thinking when I saw that.

I'm a bit confused on a couple areas of this issue.. What is the "stated" purpose of this process ? I know the assumed reasoning is to make abortion more difficult, but is there any medical reason to do this other than to "guilt" the person getting the procedure?

This is the key, IMO.. If its medically needed to, for instance determine the age of the featus to, for example confirm it falls within the acceptable age to abort (for example) then it should be evaluated. If its simply a guilt trip GTFO..

Secondly, I freely admit ignorance on the whole abortion process, but to do it, doesn't some amount of tooling have to be inserted to accomplish the procedure ?

If so, doesn't it makes the claims of "republican mandated rape", and comparisons to getting something shoved up your ass to get a boner pill a bit melodramatic? It seems like it would be more comparative to getting a root canal, and being ok with the drill tool, but objecting to having your mouth's sanctity violated with the pick thingy

PS I'm actually pro-choice and have no emotional or political investment in this whatsoever, just trying to understand the nuance.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I am not surprised at all that people are reading further into what I say.

You'll note if you bother to read my writings in this thread I have stated no position on the merits of this procedure at all. I've simply said it's not occurring without consent; the quote in the original article is glaringly incorrect.Congrats, you're at least the third to misread. I won't defend this law. I don't really care about it and it sounds silly. But it's disingenuous to use words like "without consent" as if it's damn near rape. It surely is not and it surely IS with consent as it is an elective (in virtually all cases) procedure.

"Consent" doesn't have a definition as black and white as you frame it. When you require an invasive procedure as a precondition for an important, life changing medical procedure, you are essentially putting that person between a rock and a hard place. One might say that if she decides to go through with it, she "consented" to the invasive procedure, but her consent would be what we refer to in the law as "under duress." It isn't quite as straight forward as you put it. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me the contents of your bank account or be killed, and you gave me your money, one could say you "consented." After all, you had another choice. You could have accepted a bullet in your head.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,956
27,638
136
Lol that is exactly what I was thinking when I saw that.

I'm a bit confused on a couple areas of this issue.. What is the "stated" purpose of this process ? I know the assumed reasoning is to make abortion more difficult, but is there any medical reason to do this other than to "guilt" the person getting the procedure?

This is the key, IMO.. If its medically needed to, for instance determine the age of the featus to, for example confirm it falls within the acceptable age to abort (for example) then it should be evaluated. If its simply a guilt trip GTFO..

Secondly, I freely admit ignorance on the whole abortion process, but to do it, doesn't some amount of tooling have to be inserted to accomplish the procedure ?

If so, doesn't it makes the claims of "republican mandated rape", and comparisons to getting something shoved up your ass to get a boner pill a bit melodramatic?
It seems like it would be more comparative to getting a root canal, and being ok with the drill tool, but objecting to having your mouth's sanctity violated with the pick thingy

PS I'm actually pro-choice and have no emotional or political investment in this whatsoever, just trying to understand the nuance.

If a woman on her way to her boyfriends house is stopped by a stranger and inserts his penis into her vagina we don't allow it under the guise, well she was going to have a penis inserted in her vagina anyway, it just happened 30 minutes earlier.

Just sayin'
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
If a woman on her way to her boyfriends house is stopped by a stranger and inserts his penis into her vagina we don't allow it under the guise, well she was going to have a penis inserted in her vagina anyway, it just happened 30 minutes earlier.

Just sayin'

Why are you so fixated on sex and rape ? We are talking about a medical procedure here.

A vaginal ultrasound is SOP in prenatal care, at least it was for all 3 of my kids.. Its used when the fetus is too small to see with an external. IIRC, it was done to determine the actual age of the fetus to get the due date, and make sure it was in the right place ( ie not tubal)

I don't think my wife felt like she was raped, I certainly didn't feel like a cuckold watching it ;) Well actually she had a female doc so maybe that had something to do with it. It was just one of the many "violations" along the road of having the babies.

Again, if there is a medical reason to do this in this case I don't see the issue. If its simply there to "guilt" the person into not getting an abortion, then its disgusting and should be abolished. My feeling it's more the latter considering who is pushing this, however the rhetoric and emotional flailing from the "against" team isn't helping to clear the waters.