Featured Stories Floyd Reports Opinion


A Transvaginal Sonogram Is Not ‘Rape’


Dahlia Lithwick, of Slate, who described new Virginia law as "Mandated Rape"

LIMA, Ohio — I don’t understand how the liberal mind is wired. Sometimes it is truly alien to me.

Take, for example, a proposed law in Virginia that would have required some women to undergo a little discomfort with transvaginal sonograms before brutally killing their children.

In a transvaginal sonogram, a wand is inserted in the vagina to yield an image of the fetus. The procedure differs from an abdominal sonogram, in which a wand is rubbed over the woman’s belly.

To the undisciplined liberal mind, this is, as one female lawmaker in Virginia put it, “state-mandated rape.”

Only liberals would take a common medical procedure and try to convince the public that it is the equivalent of rape. And not just a moral or figurative equivalent, but literal rape. And they do so as a way of defending the abhorrent practice of killing unborn children.

Dahlia Lithwick, an editor with “Slate” who also writes about legal issues, claimed, wrongly of course, that the law meets the federal definition of rape.

The new federal definition of rape, put in place just last month, is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

When I first heard her defending this position on the radio, I thought it was a joke, so I went to Slate’s website, and sure enough it was a real article.

How disgusting.

Her piece was an abomination and a slap in the face to all rape victims.

And, of course, it fails logically because the penetration has to be “without the consent of the victim.”

She insisted that the transvaginal probe was to be administered without the consent of the woman.


In her mind, crazed doctors are grabbing pregnant women off the streets, strapping them down to gurneys, and forcibly conducting transvaginal sonograms on them for no reason.

In reality, the woman does consent. She consents when she chooses to kill her child. The sonogram would simply have been a part of that procedure. No one was forcing her to do anything. She could always choose not to kill her child. Or she could choose to go to a different state to kill her child.

Regardless, she was clearly consenting to the procedure.

Besides, only a liberal can find it logical to take offense to an invasive procedure just before getting an abortion. Last I checked, abortion is a pretty invasive procedure itself. Such protestations are meaningless when taken in the proper context.

Unfortunately, the only thing more predictable than faulty liberal thinking is the lack of courage from conservatives.

Comedian Jon Stewart likened the procedure to women getting “a TSA patdown inside their vagina.” On Feb. 11, “Saturday Night Live” ridiculed the Virginia General Assembly and the bill, with Amy Poehler saying “transvaginal” was her “favorite airline.”

That was enough to send the Virginia conservatives cowering faster than you could say “Susan G. Komen,” and the bill was killed.

That is unfortunate for two reasons.

First, voluntarily killing another human being, not in self-defense, is wrong, and the government should prohibit that behavior. Given that the Supreme Court has yet to come to its senses and reverse itself, any law that makes it more difficult to get an abortion should be welcomed. The idea that abortions should be cheap and easy is sickening.

Second, the law made sense. Before undergoing any medical procedure as invasive as an abortion, the patient must not only consent to the procedure, but must make informed consent.

The law would have only required the transvaginal sonogram for women in the first trimester because an abdominal sonogram does not produce the detailed image needed during the first-trimester.

This procedure would give women the information they need before making the serious decision to have an abortion.

Ironically, those people protesting this law most loudly, as an unwarranted intrusion of the state into the medical profession, are also the same ones who think ObamaCare is a good idea.

What’s more invasive than the federal government taking over the health care system? Now that is akin to rape, figuratively speaking, of course.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.


Let us know what you think!