Does Planned Parenthood Even Know What An Abortion Is?

So, there’s a bit of controversy surrounding the proposed informed consent law in Virginia that would require women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound. Of course, radical abortion advocates find this offensive. Because women can’t be trusted with information about their bodies, I guess.

Couple of points:

  1. If they really care about women’s health then wouldn’t they want an abortion doctor to do an ultrasound so that the doctor can accurately know the age of the fetus and perform the abortion with as little risk to the mother?
  2. In what other health scenario is a patient not given detailed information about her condition? If I break a bone, I’m shown an x-ray. If I have a tumor, clot, etc., I’m shown a scan. Why withhold the information now? -Except for the fact that the truth of the ultrasound also reveals the truth about abortion, namely that it destroys a living human being.

But this New York Times piece makes me wonder if Planned Parenthood and co. even know what an abortion is. You see, they’re protesting the informed consent legislation by saying that the vaginal ultrasound required early in the pregnancy is akin to ….. RAPE. Really? Really.

“Akin to rape,” one legislator called the bill. “Asking doctors to commit a sex crime,” declared another. Liberal women’s groups fanned outrage over “forced vaginal penetration,” and Virginia was mocked on comedy shows.

Planned Parenthood echoes the sentiments:

“There are no other situations where the legislature injects itself into the examining room and dictates how physicians practice,” said Dr. Scott Spear, medical director for Planned Parenthood in central Texas and the Austin region.

So my question for these abortion advocates: Do you know what an abortion is and how it takes place? It involves forced and often painful vaginal penetration, FYI.

Is abortion rape? If you follow their logic, it certainly sounds like it.

And, btw, if there weren’t laws governing how physicians practice, there would be no medical malpractice suits…

Gosnell’s Mother’s Day Massacre
“Charlie Hebdo” – Free Speech Or A Very Different Issue Altogether?
War on Women? Try 2 Million Contacts. 100,000 Hours. Countless Lives Transformed.
There are Kermit Gosnells everywhere and they can be brought to justice.
  • Dan Kennedy

    Utterly amazing. One has to be suffering from an ideological stupor to make the claims they make with a straight face…

  • RosalindaL

    Logic is a lost art…

  • becky

    There was an interview with VA Governor McDonnell on 103.5 here in VA yesterday. Sadly, the Governor didn’t bring up the liability issue for doctors (except to sort of hint at it) and compare it to your example of a broken bone. A person seeking care for a possible broken bone will always have an x-ray to ascertain the degree of damage and see where the bones or fragments of bone are. No doctor would try to re-set a dislocation either without an x-ray to ensure there isn’t peripheral damage. So how can they go into a woman’s body BLINDLY and inject, scrape, and suck out material? Would a doctor ever try to perform amniocentesis and other invasive tests done on high risk pregnancies without an ultrasound? Here’s a link with a section describing how doctors use ultrasound to guide them during amniocentesis:

    They want to know where the baby is inside the uterus. So how can anyone object to seeing where the “fetus” is before they try to forcibly remove it? Like you say, if you have a tumor or a growth, a doctor will use imaging first – they don’t go in blindly. So how can any sane person, especially the lawyers out there, object to obtaining imaging to better stage and identify the “growth” an abortionist tends to remove? If the proponents want to fight the objections to this law, wouldn’t it be in their interest to cite case law showing abortionists who have been sued for damages as a result of improperly performed procedures because they did not obtain imaging?

    Citing the legal and medically necessary concerns from a doctor’s perspective and ignoring the emotional distractions of the abortion advocates would seem a better focus. I wish someone had mentioned that to the VA Governor so he could better represent the law.

  • Andrew Griffin

    Let me just state off the bat that I’m unequivocally against abortion, in favor of its illegalization, and (in the mean time), in favor of laws that make it more difficult to obtain abortions, and those involved more aware of the destruction they’re doing.

    That said, I’m against this *particular* law because it requires a vaginal ultrasound. It seems to me that demanding a woman have a device inserted into her vagina in order to take the ultrasound will have entirely the opposite effect that we’re trying to achieve – changing hearts/minds. Calling it rape doesn’t seem too far fetched – it’s penetration with a grudgingly given consent; one mandated by the government to achieve some goal.

    I question why the law didn’t mandate a non-intrusive version of an ultrasound. Surely, it would have given the liberals one less thing to nit-pick over. In fact, I’ve talked with friends who are in favor of easy access to abortion who have said they would have been fine with the law had it required a normal ultrasound. And yet, the law exists as it does. Why?

    • James Heaney

      Accident. The law was originally conceived to have the effect you proposed. However, for some very early-term abortions, the standard abdominal ultrasound (so I’m told) won’t work. Abortion advocates realized this meant transvaginal ultrasounds would be required, and were running with the “rape” meme internet-wide before Virginia lawmakers ever heard the word “transvaginal.”

      So, the law was drafted without giving complete consideration to all its possible consequences, pro-lifers left our left flank open, and we got pounded. The latest in a lengthy series of unforced errors from the pro-life establishment during the past 12 months (which is why I’m starting to give money to Personhood USA over Americans United for Life).

    • Michelle

      Andrew, I say this respectfully, but a lot of men are not educated about women’s health and simply don’t know (for obvious reasons) what is protocol today.

      Transvaginal ultrasounds are now routine, becoming exceedingly popular. The first pictures I saw of my kids were from a transvaginal ultrasound (and my first was ten years ago already – this is nothing new). Prior to seven weeks it can be difficult and sometimes impossible to see an embryo. These types of ultrasounds are also almost always done to identify other problems such as ovarian cysts and fibroids, often eliminating the need for biopsies and further testing because of the clear picture from a transvaginal ultrasound. Planned Parenthood makes big bucks off abortions, why would they want women to get a clear picture – to see that a six week old embryo is a living thing?

      Did I feel raped by all the transvaginal ultrasounds I have received? No. I wasn’t asked for permission, but the doctors did what they felt was the best in today’s world of modern medicine, it was protocol.

      All women get (or should get) vaginal/plevic exams every year so that a pap smear can be detected – should I call that “invasive” or “rape” — absurd!

      Planned Parenthood and the rest of it’s followers are just playing dumb. An abortion and all that goes with it (pelvic exam, needle to dilate the cervix) is all done vaginally – yet they don’t call that rape.

      Transvaginal ultrasounds are done all the time during pregnancy and to save women’s lives – and they just might save a child’s too.

      Pia – your article is spot on – thank you.

    • Hans Asmussen

      From the reports on the bill I saw, it did not state which ultrasound was to be used. It left that up to the physician. The media and PP are the ones who spun it towards the transvaginal ultrasound outcry.

  • dre916

    This is from left field but…when I go to my gyn, he does this kind of ultra sound, and it’s the least invasive part of the exam. When you consider what is going to be done to the woman’s body to suck the baby out, the ultra sound wand ain’t nothin’.

  • Christy

    I am by no means a “radical abortion advocate” and I find this law offensive. It did not stem from doctors saying they need to do an ultrasound for the health of their patients, it is part of an agenda to prevent women from having abortions. I’m all for reducing the number of abortions but this is not the way to do it. Addressing the reasons women are choosing that path – economic, no social support, etc.. would be much more effective instead of forcing them to have an ultrasound (trans-vaginal or otherwise) in the hopes that it will sway their decision. It is appalling to assume that any woman considering ending a pregnancy has not already agonized over that decision.

  • rainbowdust

    If you take the abortion pill, you will not have anyone going into your vagina to suck out the embryo, which would mean this would be the only incident of vaginal penetration during the abortion process.

    Promoters of this law are saying this is so that the pregnant woman will be asked to see the ultra sound image and hear the heartbeat so that she can have “more information.” The doctor will be required to record, in the woman’s permanent medical record, if they refused it or accepted it. Most women getting an abortion already know what’s in there, so I’m not sure what the WOMAN is supposed to get out of seeing it, information wise. I can see how it would be helpful to the doctor, but that is not the point here. They are trying to guilt the woman out of the abortion. There’s really no reason to ask them if they would like to see the embryo or hear the heartbeat of an embryo they are about to abort. If they are interested in either, they would have asked to do so, themselves.

    When you get an x-ray for your broken arm, the doctor isn’t going to make you feel obligated to look at the x-ray and then feel guilty for treating it. And let’s be real here, for some people an abortion has a different and bigger emotional toll than a broken arm would.