Share
A bill is currently being debated by the Virginia General Assembly that would require women to get an ultrasound prior to receiving an abortion at any time throughout the pregnancy.
The original bill was first brought before the Virginia Senate as SB 484 by Republican Sen. Jill Vogel.
It was passed on Feb. 1 to the Republican-controlled Senate. It will now have to pass the House of Delegates before being sent to Gov. Bob McDonnell, who has expressed support for the bill and is expected to sign it into law.
At the moment, there is no assigned date for the vote in the entire House of Delegates, but it will have to be put to a vote by next Tuesday, according to Joe Yost, Republican delegate for the 12th District, which includes Blacksburg.
“I have not taken a stance on the bill itself,” Yost said. “I’m still studying the legislation.”
The House bill, HB 462, is currently being put to a vote in the Courts of Justice committee, according to Richmond Sunlight, an online website that tracks the process of bills in the Virginia House of Delegates.
The bill states pregnant women must get an ultrasound, but are not required to view the image and listen to the fetus’ heartbeat.
The results of the ultrasound will permanently be on the woman’s medical record.
Planned Parenthood argues the ultrasounds are not medical necessities.
“These health care decisions are best made by individuals and their medical providers, and it is not a politician’s place to play doctor,” said Tanya Semones, a field coordinator for Planned Parenthood
Southwest.
Sen. John S. Edwards said the bill would also require women to get a specific type of ultrasound known as a transvaginal ultrasound.
Edwards said the procedure is unnecessarily invasive for women, and does not support the bill.
“(The ultrasounds are) ideologically driven,” Edwards said. “They’re not supported by sound science, the restrictions are wholly unnecessary from a medical standpoint, they run up the cost of the procedure and they may be unconstitutional.”
Edwards is concerned the bill directly opposes the 21st Amendment, more specifically, the right to privacy women derived from Roe v. Wade.
But, Vogel argues her bill does not impede on a woman’s right to an abortion.
“It absolutely does not infringe on her right to have an abortion,” she told The Virginian-Pilot.
“All it says is you’ll have an ultrasound. It doesn’t compel you to see the results.”
Currently, the law, as protected by Roe v. Wade, allows a woman to receive an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy. States cannot restrict women until the second trimester.
Virginia allows abortions during the second trimester provided they are in hospitals and not abortion clinics, according to Edwards.
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 10 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 11 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
The procedure *is* unnecessary and invasive.
This bill is awful - the only bearable part of it was the amendment introduced to make men have a rectal exam before they got a prescription for ED. The two aren't nearly equal, but it was a start. (Six of the seven women women in the Virginia senate voted for it. The other woman was the one who introduced this awful bill to begin with)
Reply to this Top
I thought the GOP was adamant against mandated health care? If this passes, the state should be forced to pay for all these ultrasounds.
Reply to this Top
Hey if you choose to have sex and get pregnant and don't want the pay my tax money shouldn't have to pay for it.
Top
Agreed - let's jack up the cost of healthcare by adding a medically unnecessary ultrasound.
Depending on the timing, it DOES impede a woman's right to have an abortion. *IF* the ultrasound is performed immediately prior to the ultrasound, then the woman just takes one day off of work. But if it needs to be done at least 24 hours ahead of time like in TX, then that's two days or at least part of two days.
For the record, I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice (for other women, not for me). Let's limit the number of abortions using education and by making contraception available.
Reply to this Top
If you can't afford to buy condoms you can't afford to have sex end of story.
Top
Abstinence is the only 100% way of preventing pregnancy; all contraceptives fail at some point. So you should rephrase your "end of story" idea.
Top
Karen the beauty of a condom is that you can see when it breaks. Then you can go to the local drug store and buy the morning after pill. Or if you are a VT student the morning after pill is only $25 instead of $40 and condoms you get 20 lubed Trojans for $5.25.
Top
Hmmm. Abortion and Homosexuality. It must be ELECTION time because otherwise they really could care less.
Reply to this Top
The GOP appears to have declared war on all forms of birth control. They want women to go back to the 1950s.
Top
Pro-life and Pro-choice at the same time - now this is the all-time oxymoron.
Can't have it both ways. One way or the other.
Reply to this Top
Um...pro-life AND pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti-health care etc...yea, oxymoron alright.
Reply to this Top