Anti-abortion bills spark heated debate in Virginia
Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William, holds a paper as he talks about his Personhood bill at the Capitol in Richmond, Va., Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012.
/ AP Photo/Steve HelberOne bill, Republican Del. Bob Marshall's House bill 1, would define personhood at conception and "provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth." The second bill requires that women be required to undergo an ultrasound procedure prior to having an abortion.
The personhood bill, which passed by 66-32 in the Virginia state House, does not ban abortions, the legality of which are protected under the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. It would, however, make illegal certain types of contraceptive measures, including emergency contraception. Women's health advocates say it could also open the door to banning birth control pills and intrauterine devices (IUD).
Opponents of the personhood bill decry the legislation for curbing women's rights to contraception, and argue that the bill is meant to serve as a "trigger ban," which would make abortion illegal immediately in the event that Roe V. Wade is overturned.
"The General Assembly is dangerously close to making Virginia the first state in the country to grant personhood rights to fertilized eggs," said Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, in a statement.
Democratic Virginia Delegate Charnielle Herring, an outspoken opponent of the two bills, called the bill "an attack on women's health."
In an interview with Hotsheet, Keene argued that, beyond the potential ideological questions associated with granting a fertilized egg the same rights as people, passing the bill would yield immediate practical consequences that "we can't even fathom at this point."
Keene noted that there are more than 25,000 references to the word "person" in the Virginia legislative code, and that applying all of the laws pertaining to "persons" to all existing fertilized eggs would inevitably become complicated.
She pointed to an example in which a couple undergoing in vitro fertilization successfully becomes pregnant without using as many eggs as were fertilized in the procedure. Those additional eggs would thus be considered "persons," and the couple could use exploit those "persons" to get additional tax breaks, she argued.
Herring also argues that the personhood bill is being used as a tool by Republicans to "lay the groundwork" for overturning Roe v. Wade.
"The government has no place mandating procedures," she told Hotsheet. "We're legislators, we're not physicians."
One issue that has come under the microscope with relation to the ultrasound bill is its requirement that some women undergo a transvaginal ultrasound probe, which is considered more physically invasive than other procedures.
While the bill does not explicitly mandate the use of transvaginal ultrasounds, many women would inevitably be required to undergo them; in the early stages of pregnancy, that procedure is often the only form of ultrasound that can detect a fetus' heartbeat.
Republicans argue that the ultrasound bill will protect women from complications during abortion procedures, and that providing a woman with the gestational age of the fetus is crucial to her "informed consent" to have an abortion.
"This may be the most important decision that she ever makes in her life. A tough decision. And we determined over a decade ago that we were going to ensure that a woman has a right to have all the information avail to her before making that decision," said Republican Delegate Kathy Byron, the sponsor of the ultrasound bill, in debate on the House floor.
The conservative Family Foundation also heralded the requirement as a necessary update to the Commonwealth's informed consent law, providing "modern technology, ensuring that a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy and considering abortion has as much information as possible available to her."
Keene, conversely, argues the requirement is a way to "shame women and try to convince them to change their minds and not have a procedure they've probably already thought long and hard about."
The two bills have already become a hot-button issue for some political candidates in the state, and could gain prominence on the national stage if they are signed into law.
Former Democratic Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who is running against Republicans George Allen and Marshall for the state's open Senate seat in 2012, decried the personhood bill as "reckless," and challenged Allen to publicly embrace it.
According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Allen on Wednesday affirmed his support for the bill.
"This measure is about protecting innocent unborn life. If a criminal hits a pregnant mother injuring or killing the unborn child, then there would be a cause of action for that child as well," said Allen spokeswoman Katie Wright.
"Democrats are desperately trying to make this a battle over contraceptives. As George Allen has often said he is opposed to the government prohibiting or banning contraceptives - and this bill doesn't do that," she added.
The Virginia state Senate has already passed an ultrasound bill, and Republican Governor Bob McDonnell is expected to sign the legislation when it lands on his desk. He does not have a formal position on the personhood bill.
The Virginia state Senate is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats; Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, a Republican, would be the tie-breaking vote on the personhood bill if members voted along party lines.
When asked Tuesday whether or not he knew how he would vote on the issue, Bolling said he did not, according to the Times-Dispatch.
Delegate Herring said that if the governor were to sign the personhood bill, it would show "just how far [Virginia Republicans] are willing to go to infringe on a woman's right to choose."
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface 119 Comments
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 228 Comments
- Now, some unions upset over Obamacare
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen.
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave 129 Comments
- Rand Paul uses 2016 bully pulpit to push Obama on drones
- Obama to tour Jersey Shore with Gov. Christie
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
I hope most Americans, especially women will stand up in 2012 and make their voice held by these retrogressive republicans who think they were given a mandate to monitor women's uterus.
"A human being is a human being, no matter what location and no matter what stage of development. That is a fact."
Yet I bet those self-righteous hypocrits are totally PRO capital punishment - oh the insanity of it all!!!!
How dare YOU! AGAINST ABORTION?? Don't have one.
It is difficult to understand why Planned Parenthood and NARAL would oppose a procedure that is part of their established protocol.
this is forced rape
In a free country, the doctor would determine what information is necessary, how best to acquire it, discuss options with the patient, and, if the patient concurs, proceed. In Virginia, the governor is about to sign a bill making a consultation like that pointless. Doctors must now treat all patients, regardless of their individual medical situation, in a manner predetermined by the legislature - which is to perform an invasive ultrasound and then wait 24 hours. Sometimes the doctor and patient will agree with the legislated procedure (though not likely with the 24-hour delay), but if they do not, for any reason, well, too bad.
Imagine a situation where a doctor determines that a medical emergency, for example a car accident or serious illness, requires surgery that might terminate a pregnancy. In Virginia, such potentially life-saving emergency surgery will be prohibited by law until 24 hours after diagnosis, assuming that the patient is still able to sign a form saying she's viewed her ultrasound results. Seriously.
It is difficult for me to understand how anyone supports this.
God says He knew us in the womb....how could He know us if we were unknowable until oxygen filled our lungs.
*******************************
Look Mortar, there is a DIFFERENCE between body and soul! I think God knew us (our spirit) even before we were born. I believe our spirit was in Heaven BEFORE we were born and sent down here for our earthly life which requires obtaining a body. That's why when we die we go "home". (The body is what is being prepared in the womb for the spirit to live it's earthly life in.) I also believe that when a miscarrage or an abortion happens the soul or spirit returns to Heaven until they are sent back to someone to obtain another body and still be born. The soul does not become permanently (at least for the earthly lifetime) attached to the body until the moment of birth. That's why we celebrate the birth of a child. It's their earthly life beginning. (Their becoming a "person" so to speak. The body is like a glove over a hand (the hand being the soul or spirit which is what we really are). The hand was there before we put on the glove and remains after the glove is taken off or disposed of. Everyone is entitled to believe as they wish. We have that CHOICE. So you believe abortion is "murder" of a person who I believe does not yet exist.
I understand you disagree with the arguments, but let's be reasonable.
I may be religious...does that give me the power to decide how other people should live their lives? Why should I decide if someone is allowed to abort their children or have birth control or marry their gay lover...and what right do these old Republican idiots have to tell ME what I can do with my body? We allow people to smoke cigarettes even though it causes cancers and kills people...we should totally ban cigarettes since it's a danger and kills people. People should be protected from dangers to their lives...right?
Banning cigarettes sounds ridiculous, and so do all of these things. Separate church and state. This religious battle the Republicans keep fighting shouldn't be impacting my choices as a woman. What if I am a member of a religious that doesn't care about my unborn child's rights? Then wouldn't it be a violation of my religious freedom to FORCE me to comply with their religious beliefs?
Stop forcing me to follow the bible when I chose not to. I don't need politicians shoving their religious views down my throat when they won't care about me and my safety as a woman when the time comes. Oh...and what if my unborn child is a female? Will they get the same treatment as I do? Then I won't want to bring any children into this world if this is what it's coming to.
if your argument is so sound why did you suddenly decide to grow the fetus by over five years?