http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/02/05/rapert-pulls-vaginal-probe-no-fix-for-unconstitutional-bill Comments On: Rapert pulls vaginal probe; no fix for unconstitutional bill by Max Brantley en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Wed, 22 May 2013 18:00:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by ArkansasGirl]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:31:16 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by the outlier]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:16:55 -0600 Arkansas Times
First, let's work on terminology. I assume we're all adults here, right? These legislators are wanting to require a probe stuck in a woman's vagina. Vagina, vagina, vagina. I know men have a hard time saying the word, in spite of their endless fascination with the region, but if you can't say "vagina" then you probably ought not be legislating it.

Now-let's look at your logic. Since a woman having an abortion is having all sorts of sundry objects stuck "up in there," then what's one more, right? Your argument assumes that a woman's vagina is something akin to the Lincoln Tunnel. By your same rationale, then, a sexually active woman shouldn't really mind being raped, since if she's had one penis (or if you prefer, Mr. Peepee or a wee wee since "penis" may also be hard to say) stuck "up in there," then really, why not a few more?

Perhaps that's a bit extreme, so let's go real world. I am currently in my first trimester of a planned pregnancy. This is not my first rodeo, so I have other children at home who rely upon me every single day. I also have a husband who I think likes having me around. Soon, my OB will discuss with me some options for genetic testing that I can choose to have done in the next couple of weeks. There are some new tests with 99% accuracy in detecting genetic abnormalities, some of which mean certain death for an unborn child. Since I am now, at the ripe age of 35, of "advanced maternal age," that means that this time around, my child is slightly more likely to have some of these genetic issues.

Hypothetically speaking, were one of those tests to come back positive, naturally my husband and I would seek second, third and fourth opinions. We'd meet with specialists. And then we'd have to make some difficult decisions. Let me tell you plainly: The news would be devastating, but I know in my heart that I could not continue a pregnancy where I knew that this baby would die shortly after birth or would be born sleeping. I personally am not able, and I am not willing to risk my other children watching their mother go through a doomed pregnancy - and living the aftermath - if I have some other option.

So, back to these legislators. After all of this agony, they want me to jump through one final hoop: being violated by a cold metal probe to verify a heartbeat. After all, I've had any number of other tests done, blood drawn, objects in my vagina, so why not subject me to one more, right? I shouldn't mind. It shouldn't bother me to be violated one last time, to be shamed by my decision, made with sound medical advice, discussion with my husband and yes, even prayer. Why not one last probe?

Perhaps it is difficult for men to understand this because they cannot carry life, and understand what agony it must be for a woman to be forced to carry a pregnancy in which the tiny baby inside her kicks not because they have a working brain, but because they have a functional spinal column, and no brain to support life outside the womb. Knowing that the moment they push that life into the world will not be one of joy, but instead one of knowing that the child's life will be counted in minutes, or hours and not years. Or perhaps that there will be years, but those years will be spent in excruciating pain. Some women are brave enough for this, and I commend them for their strength. I am not, and I cannot sacrifice myself when my other children also deserve to have their mother.

Do people abuse the ability to get an abortion? Absolutely. Some get abortions for far less noble reasons. On the other hand, some people abuse their right to own a gun and go and kill their neighbors, and yet, as you aptly pointed out, the rights of responsible gun owners should not be infringed upon due to the bad acts of others. Likewise, should my right to make a responsible decision about my reproductive rights be infringed upon because some women are not responsible and abuse the ability to get an abortion as a means of birth control? Let's not be selective when we discuss constitutional rights - I'll stay out of your gun safe if you stay out of my vagina.
Posted by BigMomma]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:10:21 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by ArkansasGirl]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 08:52:45 -0600 Arkansas Times
Restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights are no different in this context than restrictions on abortions. Both should be balanced between personal rights and states' interests. The Supreme Court drew the balancing line for abortion at the point of viability. You (and others) seem to suggest that there should be no restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights, despite the fact that there are limitations on 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 14th... you get the point.

Shorter version: If anyone is being hypocritical between these two issues, it's you.
Posted by Infamous Amos]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 08:33:12 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by RYD]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 07:47:02 -0600 Arkansas Times
Now more than ever I'm convinced that we're being lied to about the use of this device.
Posted by ProCarry]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 07:33:51 -0600 Arkansas Times
If a women can walk into an abortion clinic and have a probe inserted in prove she has a fetal heartbeat, then Rapert and friends agree to give her $10,000 a year for the next 18 years out of state revenue.

Compassionate government, "We won't let you have an abortion, but we will ensure your child has a decent life."

.....................but we all know Rapert doesn't give a shit about born kids.
Posted by mudturtle]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:01:56 -0600 Arkansas Times How much are you willing to give annually to support all of the kids that would be born unwanted and placed under the government's care if abortion was made illegal? No new taxes, right?
Posted by The Hog]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:13:23 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by ozarkrazo]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:57:35 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by B Rock Sucks]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:38:50 -0600 Arkansas Times TheCabin.net if you really want to see some ignorance, YDD.
Posted by Doc]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:26:24 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Yellowdogdaughter]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:16:01 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by B Rock Sucks]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:14:23 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Infamous Amos]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:07:45 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Yellowdogdaughter]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:02:56 -0600 Arkansas Times
How about being concerned about a group of Republicans willing to waste Arkansas tax dollars in an abortive (good word here) effort to make a Dixie-type last stand for stupidity, ignorance, and disrespect for the law. Put on those sabers men, they may outnumber us by 50 to 1 but we is the Arkansas Taliban and we need to go and show everyone how stupid we are and I can't afford the explosive vests!
Posted by couldn't be better]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:02:25 -0600 Arkansas Times
However, if a woman has an abortion, aren't all sorts of things stuck up in her to take the unborn scientific glob of human matter? What's one more thing? I await a long list of responses.
Posted by B Rock Sucks]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:09:15 -0600 Arkansas Times