Virginia Ultrasound Bill Passed by Legislators With Rape Exception Clause

Virginia lawmakers on Thursday afternoon passed a final version of a bill requiring ultrasounds before abortions, including new language making the procedure optional for rape and incest victims who have reported the crime to the police.

The state House of Delegates voted 61-35 to pass the bill, adding in language from a final Senate amendment to make the external ultrasound optional for some women seeking abortions. The vote culminates a tulmultuous several-week battle, with the state receiving national attention from a now dead proposal for a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound, a governor's statement that he had not read the bill and a Republican lawmaker's announcement that the bill had cost him sex with his wife.

On Tuesday, the state Senate adopted an amendment to make the external ultrasound optional for women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest, but only if they report that crime to police. Opponents said the amendment was problematic since not all rape victims report this crime out of fear of reprisal. All other women in Virginia would need to receive an external ultrasound before being able to have an abortion.

The final bill passed 21-19 in the Senate, which is evenly split between the two major parties, with two Democratic senators voting in favor and a Republican senator voting against. In the GOP-controlled House, two Democratic delegates voted in favor, and one Republican dissented.

The bill now goes to Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, who is expected to sign the measure.

The passage of the legislation was swiftly attacked by Democratic lawmakers in Richmond.

"This is a significant blow for Virginia women, whom legislative Republicans seemingly cannot trust to make their own medical decisions without the General Assembly's intrusive meddling," Del. Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond) said in a statement. "The supporters of this measure do not have medical facts or public opinion on their side. Their only goal is to intimidate women and appeal to a narrow, extremist base."

The bill had become known for requiring as a prerequisite for an abortion a mandatory ultrasound at any stage of a pregnancy, initially specifying a transvaginal ultrasound for the early stages. Republican legislators and McDonnell dropped the mandatory transvaginal component following a national uproar. McDonnell said last week that he did not know the transvaginal component had been part of the bill.

After that change, state Del. David Albo (R-Fairfax Station) said during a floor debate last week that the national controversy over the transvaginal ultrasound plan had caused his wife to decline to have sex with him.

The bill's passage comes days after Alabama lawmakers discarded a transvaginal mandate from a similar bill. Rachel Maddow reported that the language was dropped after Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican, told The Huffington Post he was unfamiliar with the bill.

Comments

[Kim Black]

08:48 PM on 12/09/2012

I cannot believe this passed! What's with the rape or incest clause? Is that just to reinforce the punishment aspect? If I lived in Virginia and needed an abortion, I would call 911 from the doctor's office, tell them I was raped by a man in a mask, then turn around and give the doctor the case #.

[chaifreak]

08:42 PM on 03/23/2012

Yet more evidence that Pro-birthers have no idea how the world works. Women have been terminating pregnancies since there were women. It won't stop even if you penalize and penalize; it will just send it underground. I personally doubt their inclusion in homo sapiens sapiens.

[Fenrir Lokison]

09:45 AM on 03/08/2012

First Oklahoma and now Virginia. Good for the babies inside the womb. Maybe men and women and children of childbearing age will start to think more wisely about how they treat their bodies.

[puffnstuff123]

03:36 PM on 03/08/2012

Hi Fenrir, son of Loki, a Norse God. Hmmmm, to group children of childbearing years with the adults is very interesting. What age do you consider the children of child-bearing age? 10 years old? 11 years old? 9 years old in some cases?

[rob522]

05:16 PM on 03/07/2012

As a Virginian...i am disappointed in our legistature and our governor... women and others who don't like this bill....should have voted in yesterdays primary....turn out was low...they should have went and voted for Ron Paul...that would have all but killed McDonnell's chance of ever being vice president.

[AdroitRose]

02:08 PM on 03/06/2012

Pro-Choice advocates would do well to recognize that Pro-life folks believe that the organism in question is a child, a human being -- no different than, say, a two-year-old older sibling. Naturally, they will work to protect that child -- even if from his or her own mother. That's what governments must do. Instead, the Left simply labels conservative women as "traitors" and "idiots" (one poster goes so far as to say, "you cannot be a remotely intelligent woman and a conservative at the same time"). What good does this kind of vitriolic rhetoric do to advance the dialogue? It's arrogant, myopic and just plain mean.

[nonChristian]

09:29 AM on 03/07/2012

A two year old doesn't attach itself to another person's body and suck nutrition and oxygen. Comparing a two year old and a fetus is actually idiotic. It is a woman's choice if she wants to provide for a potential dependent organism.
BTW the right doesn't care for children anyway. Those conservative women will be first to call for ending child support to poor moms. They care for the unborn, life is sacred then, after it is born life becomes "unsacred" until the child is ready for military service. The rhetoric may sound mean but compared to what the right is making women do, it is nothing.

[foodle]

12:42 PM on 03/06/2012

How in the world is the forced imaging of the inside of a person's body not a 4th amendment violation?

[Fenrir Lokison]

09:44 AM on 03/08/2012

How is it that it is?

[ephemeralwhispe]

12:58 AM on 03/04/2012

These bills make my head hurt. I. My. I think I need to stop reading politics for my own health. ...But on the same note, I really need to be aware of it, so I can vote for people who don't make my skull pound with this kind of...stuff. Hngh. Such a dilemma. What do?

[JeanVA]

01:23 AM on 03/05/2012

I'm right there with you. I WANT to stick my head in the sand. But I despise people who do...

[scootercallahan1]

04:26 PM on 03/02/2012

I am pro-choice, but I will have a little bit different take than some of you. The thing that a lot of other pro-choice supporters use is the "its a womans body" argument against any legislation that seems to try and undermind the legality of abortion. Here is the problem ladies, it isnt just your body anymore. It was your body when you decided to have unprotected sex, but now there is another life inside of you so there is a lot more to consider. Since abortion is a legal procedure (as it should be), why is,it to

[scootercallahan1]

04:28 PM on 03/02/2012

Continued, why is it too much to ask that you be faced with the hard reality of the decision first? Nobody is stopping you from getting the abortion, but hearinb t

[mp146]

10:32 PM on 03/02/2012

Yeah, it the women's body, health and life that some people want force her to risk against her will to save a potential baby's life. It is akin to mandate that every person can be forced against his/her will to possibly save another life, like have mandatory bone marrow or even organ donation if somebody else's life might be saved with that.
"Why is it to much to ask that you be faced with the hard reality of the decision first"?" By the same token you should be forced to face the person whose life you are not willing to save by donating your kidney or lung to.
Nobody is going to changer her mind seeing an ultrasound , why do you assume that women are too stupid to know what an abortion means? Not to mention that if you do it early, which is the way to do it anyway, the fetus doesn't look like a person.

[scootercallahan1]

04:48 PM on 03/02/2012

Continued....... Why is it too much to require that you see the full reality of your decision. This isnt a mole, or cyst being removed, it is a child or at least left unharmed the beginnings of a child. In this instance you will be given the opportunity to hear the heartbeat and an outline of the child. That reality might lead you to change your mind. No one is stopping you from getting the abortion but given the commonality of abortions and our continued desensitization to this very serious procedure it might put a little more perspective in the decision you are making for yourselves.

[Hanover Fiste]

11:57 AM on 03/02/2012

Never have I been more anti-religion. I got to hand it to the church goers they sure know how to convert people to atheism. Find me a Catholic who hasn't used birth control and I'll show you the time machine used to find her.

[Foodgrade]

12:29 PM on 03/03/2012

The hypocracy is more than amazing, isn't it. I have no idea how the Catholic Church has the nerve to comment on anything sexual these days.

[bluejean1951]

11:47 AM on 03/02/2012

George Carlin (may he rest in peace) says it BEST:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w15OS2PdCKo#!

They will do anything for the "unborn" but once you're born "YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN!"

[nikkitytom]

12:21 AM on 03/04/2012

And ain't that the truth ....

[redrigs]

11:45 AM on 03/02/2012

Trans-vaginal Governor McDonnell - you can kiss your political career good-by....

[jgallery]

11:21 AM on 03/02/2012

According to the brillant Barbra Boxer - if religious groups can be excempt from providing services they disagree with - they will claim prayer heals and not provide any care - now how do argue with 'logic' like that?

[hburns1351]

11:30 AM on 03/02/2012

But that's exactly what the Blunt-Rubio amendment would have allowed. All they would have had to do was claim a 'moral objection'.

[Hanover Fiste]

11:54 AM on 03/02/2012

You don't. Left to themselves the batsh*t loons of the right would be digging up Copernicus so they could properly burn him at the stake. I wish this was hyperbole.

[jgallery]

11:19 AM on 03/02/2012

Where is the story about Selbius (sp?) sayinbg bc lowers health cost to insurers because fewer people are born? This is a great finding we need announced to the world

[Foodgrade]

12:39 PM on 03/03/2012

The churches are in a who can grow their church largest by making women into baby machines contest.

[summerlin south]

11:07 AM on 03/02/2012

Well, you can count on one thing... a lot of women are gonna start dying off because of these men in power, because of this conduct. It's called theocratic rule and the women are the first wave to be decimated by it.

[jgallery]

11:17 AM on 03/02/2012

lack of bc provided by reiligious groups who object will kill women?

[JeanVA]

09:38 AM on 03/05/2012

Yes - because, like when I was in college, before bc and legal abortions, women will end pregnancies that would destroy their lives.

Back-alley abortions kill.

[jamiewarhol]

11:02 AM on 03/02/2012

you cannot be a remotely intelligent woman and a conservative at the same time.
what is this garbage?