Skip to main content

View Diary: Let's call the Virginia law what it is: State mandated rape by proxy. UPDATED (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's rape and I would think it would also (16+ / 0-)

    be an unconstitutional search.  

    If placing a GPS on a suspect's car is an illegal search then sticking a probe up my vagina sure as Hell ought to be also!

    There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and Suckers.

    by susanWAstate on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 01:21:09 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  rape is a technical, legal term (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      susanWAstate, radarlady, Renfriend

      and thus under the control of the legislature to define.

      so no it isn't rape, not legally. If it were, you could charge the doc and convict him, and that would never happen.

      Now it is certainly is a purposeless and gross violation of a woman's rights, body, and freedom, and thus unconstitutional and should be stopped.

      It isn't a search per se because there is no seeking of evidence, but I think the fourth amendment right to be secure in one's person is nevertheless indicated. I think we narrow the 4th amendment when we think of it as just being about searches/seizures, it's really about being secure in one's person, which is squarely what this is about.

      •  Sticking an object in a woman's vagina against her (12+ / 0-)

        wishes is rape! It doesn't have to be a penis! Even if a woman submits to it seemingly willingly (as women who can't go to another state or can't afford to go to another state will be forced to do, if for any reason they need to terminate any pregnancy), it's still rape!

        There is no medical value in forcing all women who want to terminate pregnancies to undergo such a procedure. Before the law, I imagine it would be malpractice for a doctor to force this on a patient. It is akin to the teabagger pols being allowed to practice medicine a la mengele. It's nothing less than legislated rape of women. It's all about keeping women down in the name of religion. It's evil.

        As far as 'it's not rape if a doctor does it' goes, it's probably against their Hippocratic Oath to do it. Doctors need to outright refuse to comply with this law. It needs to be struck down hard. The people who proposed it and legislated it, should be hounded out of office, and perhaps for many years afterwards.

        It's time to make it much less comfortable for the "pro-life" assholes to ply their trade. After all they've been harassing patients and killing doctors for years. Exposing them and hounding them forever is nothing compared to what they've done.

        Fuck your technicality! Rape is rape!

        •  It won't meet (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          the legal definition of "no consent" because there will be forms to sign before hand, etc.  You consent to a lot of things when you have a medical procedure, many are not medically necessary, and as long as the "good" people of Virginia elect people who do this, and the appeals courts uphold it, it will stand.

          by KibbutzAmiad on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 02:55:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well said (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          radarlady, AnnieR

          I am outraged.

        •  well no (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          if she submits "seemingly willingly" then legally it isn't rape (mistake of fact defense for one, consent for two).

          I fully understand it "doesn't have to be a penis" but it has to be by force, and consent is a defense. So, you have a law that says doc you can't perform an abortion without this procedure, the doc tells this to a woman, the woman says ok, I don't want to but I want the abortion so ok.

          So, you are saying the doc is then guilty of rape? Never would happen, not a court/jury in the world would convict, and if they did it would be overturned on appeal.

          I absolutely agree there's no medical value here. I don't know how you get to malpractice though when the doc legally cannot perform a procedure desired by the patient without doing this procedure and again he wouldn't lose a malpractice suit for following the law, however flawed or even unconstitutional it is.

          Before the law it actually WOULD be rape to "force" this on a patient. It would not be rape to suggest it and have a patient concede to it, although it could be malpractice given the negligible value of the procedure.

          Docs can refuse to comply with the law, it's called civil disobediance, and odds are, no one's going to call them on it, although fear of going to jail, losing your job, etc probably is going to make a few docs comply.

          And it's not a "technicality." It's the way law works. Rape is what the legislature says it is. It's a legal term, just like insanity. We have other words we use like crazy or disturbed or the various medical terms to get to the heart of the matter.

          •  I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            plan9pub, LSophia


            If a woman needs an abortion in Virginia, she has no choice but to undergo rape in order to get one. You may call it her choice, but I don't perceive a choice there. It's state mandated rape, regardless of whether it's legal or not. It's evil. The people who proposed and/or voted for it should be held accountable.

      •  It meets the FBI's definition of rape (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Purple Priestess, Mayfly, LSophia

        and the last I looked, Federal law trumps state law.

        •  how so? (0+ / 0-)

          because you will have women every time saying ok do it. Granted they can say they are being placed between a rock and a hard place, but physical force isn't being used, and coercion isn't being used.

          Now, my argument is that a constitutional right is being heavily and  unnecessarily burdened by requiring a completely unnecessary and invasive procedure with no medical value.

          •  It depends on what you mean by (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            plan9pub, susanWAstate
            ... physical force isn't being used, and coercion isn't being used.
            Granted that physical force is not being used, but I argue that it is coercion.

            An analogy: Suppose the state required you to receive an injection of saline solution before exercisisg your constitutional right to criticize the governor?

            The injection is an unnecessary medical procedure. It is uncomfortable and inconvenient. There is no connection between the injection and your first amendment right to freedom of speech.

            If you were simply given the option of receiving the injection before criticizing the bastard governor, then fine: there is no coercion. But if you had to receive the injection as a precondition of being allowed to speak your mind, then you are being coerced.

            The point is that the government has no right to abridge your freedom of speech. This is the language of the First Amendment. Coercing you to receive the saline injection as a precondition abridges your freedom of speech.

            Occupy is the symptom. Fundamental reform is the cure.

            by Tim DeLaney on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 09:53:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes and for all those reason (0+ / 0-)

              in your hypo, I would say that your fundamental right to free speech has been unnecessary impinged upon, just like in this case your fourth amendment right to be free in your person, as well as the privacy right to regulate your own procreation have been impinged upon.

              I would not argue that you've been assaulted.

          •  Coercion is coercion (0+ / 0-)

            I want you to confess to a crime.

            I tell you "OK, you are free to go, but walk out that door and we'll pick up your children and interrogate them."

            I have not used any physical force, but you will probably sign and your conviction will be all legal like.

            •  which (0+ / 0-)

              is exactly my point, that confession will be quite legal, just like the one that has police tell a person lies about what they know, or threatens a deeper investigation unless they spill the beans.

              coercion is not all the same. Some is legal, some isn't.

              The issue here is not about rape, it's about impinging on a fundamental constitutional right.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site