Yesterday an OK judge delayed for 45 days enactment of a new law mandating that mothers get ultrasounds before abortions. This will allow the 2 sides to get their arguments in order to defend or oppose it.
OK’s ultrasound law goes farther than others. According to the Associated Press…
The law requires doctors to use a vaginal probe, which provides a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound, and to describe the fetus in detail, including its dimensions, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether there is cardiac activity.
That’s sloppy journalism, if not intentionally biased. The law actually requires either the abortionist or “certified technician” to “[p]erform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly….”
The “vaginal transducer” distinction is what drives this legislation further than others, making it critical to this conversation. It is different in probe placement than abdominal ultrasounds of which we’re all aware:
Creative Minority Report adds, “I’ve seen the term ‘invasive’ used to describe the ultrasounds dozens of times in the past few days.” Yes, and here the AP calls it “intrusive.”
The other side is arguing this is “rape by instrumentation.” At least one argues the new ultrasound law is literally “legaliz[ing] rape” by countermanding OK’s rape statute that indeed includes “rape by instrumentation.”
Gov. Brad Henry originally vetoed the law (which was overridden) stating, according to the AP, “‘it would be unconscionable to subject rape and incest victims to such treatment’ because it would victimize them again.”
Of course, pro-lifers have argued forever that abortion is violent and akin to rape. Dr. David Reardon writes (in the best article on rape and abortion ever):
Abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back time to make a woman “un-pregnant.” Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic….
[M]any women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape. This association between abortion and rape is not hard to understand.
Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: “It’s too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now.” And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity.
This experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not she is presently pregnant as the result of an assault. This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than other women.
The difference, according to Oklahoma Voice of Reason, is that a mother doesn’t give consent to the former but does the latter.
But there is no comparison between a benign ultrasound probe and a painful abortion that is actually akin to rape on so many levels, as Dr. Reardon described.
Pro-aborts trivialize rape by making such a comparison, and they also draw attention to that which is actually “rape by instrumentation,” the invasive and violent abortion procedure.
Giving one’s consent to abortion does not erase its trauma. Women with breast cancer may give consent to have a breast removed, but that doesn’t erase their trauma.
It is shameful for the other side to consider abortion a panacea for traumatized and vulnerable rape victims.
This is another losing argument for the other side.