Virginia Governor signs controversial abortion bill

PORTSMOUTH, Virginia Wed Mar 7, 2012 6:01pm EST

Related Topics

PORTSMOUTH, Virginia (Reuters) - Virginia's Republican Governor Bob McDonnell signed a law on Wednesday that requires women to have an ultrasound before an abortion but which left out a controversial requirement for a more invasive vaginal probe.

McDonnell, a possible Republican vice presidential contender in 2012, signed the bill after he and Republican lawmakers backed away from requiring a vaginal probe in some cases. That provision sparked fierce opposition from women's groups and abortion rights supporters who said it was demeaning.

The probe was mandatory in the original legislation, but will now be offered by the doctor when the abdominal ultrasound cannot determine the age of the fetus. Fetal age is almost never ascertainable by abdominal ultrasound in the first trimester of pregnancy, experts say.

Under the law, the woman must be offered to view the fetal image, a record of which will be kept in her medical records at the abortion facility for seven year.

Another amendment exempts women from the requirement in cases where pregnancy resulted from rape or incest and was reported to police.

Women's rights groups and Democratic lawmakers have been livid about what they say is an unconstitutional intrusion by the state.

During one of four rallies by opponents in the state capital Richmond, 30 protesters were arrested on the Capitol's steps on Saturday and charged with trespassing and unlawful assembly.

Additionally, opponents delivered to McDonnell a petition against the law with over 33,000 signatures, and the vaginal probe clause was derided by commentators, including comedians on national television.

"The bill is an unprecedented invasion of privacy and government intrusion into the doctors' offices and living rooms of Virginia women," NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Executive Director Tarina Keene said in an email, vowing Virginia women would never forget.

"Governor McDonnell's unwillingness to listen to the thousands of women across the commonwealth who are outraged by this political overreach into their lives shows nothing more than arrogance."

Proponents have claimed the overall ultrasound concept is to give women as much information as possible before making a final decision. A statement from McDonnell on Wednesday said both sides of the argument would agree that a woman's decision to seek an abortion is "difficult, irreversible and life-altering."

"This bill does not legally alter a woman's ability to make a choice regarding her pregnancy," the statement read. "I believe that we become a more compassionate society when we enact reasonable legislation to protect innocent human life," it added, saying the law aligned Virginia with 23 other states with "some type of requirement" that a woman be offered to view an ultrasound image before an abortion.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health issues, six other states have passed laws requiring abortion providers to perform ultrasounds,

While most of those states allow women to decline to view the image, Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina require women to hear the provider's verbal description of the ultrasound.

The laws in Oklahoma and North Carolina have been challenged in court but an appeals court cleared the way for Texas to begin enforcing its law in January.

(Editing by David Adams, Greg McCune and Cynthia Johnston)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
gregbrew56 wrote:
Since activists can’t impose an outright ban due to Roe v. Wade, they are making it more and more difficult to access such reproductive services.

Beware the American Taliban…

Mar 07, 2012 8:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
STSer wrote:
@:gregbrew56 and ridiculous comparisons like that are what political movements thrive upon.

I strongly oppose abortion through no basis that has to do with religion but as a determination on when life begins and thus when one is entitled to ones basic human rights. In which conception is the only clear and logical line to me before wherever we put moral culpability and/or legal majority.

Obviously once someone is alive they should not be killed simply because their existence is inconvenient. While I do regret that women must endure pregnancy but I cannot balance an entire lifetime against nine months, that math doesn’t add up. Nor are the rare cases of rape and incest excuses for punishing one by definition not alive until those acts were complete, and certainly not excuses for broad practice. Obviously medical cases go under the ethics of triage, provided they have proper guidelines beyond a doctor’s scribing.

However even as a someone that would support prosecution of abortion cases for murder… this law is a stupid and pointless attempt to pander to supporters without waging the real battle that must be fought. It is a needless waste

Mar 08, 2012 9:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
msyjfkcho wrote:
“Proponents have claimed the overall ultrasound concept is to give women as much information as possible before making a final decision.”…….. So, what new information does an ultrasound provide that the woman doesn’t already know? She already knows there is an embryo growing inside her. If she needs to see the ultrasound appearance of an embryo at that age, she simply can be shown a textbook picture or video clip of a normal prenatal ultrasound at X number of weeks gestation.

Mar 08, 2012 5:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Full focus