2012.02.14
House passes “personhood” and abortion ultrasound bills
The House of Delegates has passed bills that define life as beginning at conception and that require a pregnant woman to submit to an ultrasound before an abortion, punctuating the first half of a legislative session that has been marked by heated debates over divisive social issues.
The crossfire escalated on today as the House debated legislation that would require an ultrasound procedure prior to an abortion. The bill’s Democratic opponents have repeatedly argued that the bill amounts to a government mandate on physicians and patients and will require women to submit to an invasive procedure that may be medically unnecessary.
“This is the first time, if we pass this bill, that we will be dictating a medical procedure to a physician,” said Del. Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria. “You’re saying that it’s OK for the government to force its way into the relationship between doctor and patient.”
Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, fired back at the criticism, asserting that most women who seek abortions are doing so for “lifestyle convenience.”
“People on the other side of this issue never talk about the invasiveness to the unborn,” Gilbert said. “We hear the same song over there, and the very tragic human notes that are often touched upon involve extreme examples. In the vast majority of these cases, these are matters of lifestyle convenience.”
The bill (HB 462) passed by a vote of 63-36. An identical bill already has passed the Senate and Gov. Bob McDonnell has said he will sign the legislation.
By a vote of 66-32, the Republican-dominated House also passed “personhood” legislation (HB 1) championed by Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William County, the General Assembly’s most outspoken social conservative. The bill states that unborn children “at every stage of development” have the same rights as other individuals except where the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court interpretations or state laws say otherwise.
Democratic opponents argued that the bill’s broad language could affect access to certain types of birth control and have other unintended consequences that were not contemplated when the bill was pushed through committee late last week.
“There are probably a lot of unintended consequences that we’re going to have to come back and fix later,” said Del. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond.
Marshall said such claims are “sorely misplaced.”
“It’s been alleged by the pro-abortion or pro-choice or whatever folks that this has every bad consequence in the world and there are many lurking in the closets of legislative anarchists,” Marshall said.
Marshall and other Republican supporters said the bill is based on a Missouri statute that has been in place for more than two decades without compromising access to birth control or legal abortions.
“The opponents of this legislation have had 26 years to find one bogeyman in closet,” Marshall said. “They failed.”
The Senate today passed a bill that would amend the state’s wrongful death statute to include a fetus. Senate Bill 674 would allow a pregnant woman to bring a civil claim if her unborn child is killed by the “wrongful act, neglect or default” of another party. The bill passed by a vote of 28-11 after the Senate added an amendment stating that only the pregnant woman, her representative, or the father of the unborn child could pursue a wrongful death claim for a fetal death. Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin County, is the bill’s sponsor.
The Senate already has passed a separate bill (SB 277) sponsored by Republican Ralph Smith of Roanoke County that would create a misdemeanor penalty for forcing a pregnant female to have an abortion against her will.
– Michael Sluss
If only our legislators spent the amount of care and concern on the “born” children that they do on the “unborn”. Aren’t there more pressing needs out there right now – like jobs, education needs, infra-structure – get to work on those agenda items please.
Comment by Blacksburg Suz — February 14, 2012 @ 2:51 pm
For alot of reasons, I visualize Stanley and Smith grunting in a far off corner in ecstasy. When the worm turns, hopefully it will clean this bunch out.
Comment by B. Johnson — February 14, 2012 @ 2:54 pm
Once again the Republican “jobs” GA shows that their campaigns were based on subterfuge and their only agenda was a radical social agenda
attacking women, teachers, public schools, and labor unions. They are rapidly moving us down the road to a plutocratic theocracy. Our only hope is that Virginia’s citizens will wake up next year and throw the bums out.
Comment by dave — February 14, 2012 @ 3:21 pm
A big giant step backwards on the ultra sound mandate.
Comment by PT — February 14, 2012 @ 10:53 pm
And…who is going to pay for the ultrasounds?
Comment by PT — February 14, 2012 @ 10:56 pm
Bingo PT – The party that goes on and on about unfunded mandates creates unfunded mandates. I guess this mandate isn’t a worry of the GA as they don’t have to concern themselves with the funding or the personal rights violation. Is this is valid “search” of person?
Comment by Ernie — February 15, 2012 @ 9:50 am
I’ve filed the paperwork with the Virginia Bureau of Insurance and Corporate Commission to form a corporation that will sell Personhood Insurance. One can begin paying premiums the morning after copulation. I’m still trying to work out the details of premiums, but it appears the following apply once conception is confirmed via compulsory ultrasound: premiums will increase for one planning to home-school – home-schooled children have greater value and rights in VA; premiums will increase if parent(s) have a gun in the home – greater value to the Commonwealth; premiums will be lower for illegal immigrants because their fetuses have no value to the Commonwealth; parents who teach or work in local government will have lower premiums – their fetuses have no future value in VA.
Since a corporation is a person, what do you think about the name Personhood Insurance, Person?
Comment by Rick — February 15, 2012 @ 10:10 am
Aren’t you proud to live in a state that prides itself on being medival?
Comment by DonS — February 16, 2012 @ 11:51 am
Beyond doubt, the Virginia House is become an embarrassing shame. I suggest a contest for a new state slogan: “Virginia – We belong in your womb and your marriage but not your holster”. Kinda catchy.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2012 @ 12:30 pm
Wouldn’t the ultra-sound be an invasion of privacy for the unborn fetus that would be a person? What would happen to all those embryos at fertility clinic? Wouldn’t that be unlawful imprisonment of persons, if embryos are held at clinics and not given a chance to grown in a womb? If the embryos are abandoned, would they be reported to state social services so that they could find an appropriate surrogate mother (Virginia will have to pay for pregnant surrogate mother and potential infant born) to grow the embryo so that the pending child could be placed for adoption or foster-care. Shouldn’t the state of Virginia provide the funding that is needed (via taxes) for all the medical and lab expenses involved in caring for the embryos. Couples who choose not to abandon embryos can claim them as an extra dependent on tax returns.
Comment by SDBlacksburg — February 16, 2012 @ 3:11 pm
As a fetus, I would not want strange objects invading my property (womb)! After-all, we do have property rights!
Comment by SDBlacksburg — February 16, 2012 @ 3:14 pm