Mike the Mad Biologist

Movement conservative Grover Norquist is famous (or infamous) for his slogan, “Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.” (There are different versions of this saying). In response, some on the left will quip, when discussing the theopolitical right, that the theopolitical right wants to shrink government to the size where it will fit in the bedroom–or a woman’s vagina. Sadly, by way of Digby, we find that this does appear to be the guiding principle for the Texas Republican Party (italics mine):

Women seeking an abortion would have to first get an ultrasound under a measure approved on Thursday by the Texas House of Representatives.

The proposal, the first significant bill considered by the House this year, was designated by Republican Governor Rick Perry as an emergency priority. A similar measure has already been approved by the state Senate.

Women would have to get an ultrasound between 24 and 72 hours before an abortion, the bill says. They would view the sonogram, hear an explanation of the image and listen to the heartbeat, if it is audible.

“We want to make sure that they’re fully informed, that they understand the medical consequences, the psychological consequences and everything involved in the procedure,” said the bill’s author, Republican state Rep. Sid Miller.

Opponents said that the requirement would traumatize women already in a difficult situation. During debate on the House floor, bill opponent Rep. Carol Alvarado held up a trans-vaginal probe used for sonograms early in pregnancy to illustrate what she called a “very intrusive process.”

“This is not the jelly on the belly that most of you think,” said Alvarado, a Houston Democrat. “This is government intrusion at its best.”

Actually, I think it’s government intrusion at its worst. Keep in mind that there is no medical reason for this government-mandated vaginal intrusion. Here’s the device in question:

vaginaltransducer
(from here)

Here’s where it goes:

Hereswhereitgoes
(from here)

I think the Republicans aren’t being creative enough. Imagine how many women wouldn’t get abortions if they didn’t put the probe in the front side, but, instead, in the back side.

Although that would be kind of rape-ish. Whereas government-mandated vaginal penetration for no medical reason whatsoever is ok.

FREEDOM!!!

Comments

#1 Monado, FCD
March 7, 2011

This is fucking apalling! Freedom and self-determination fly out the window when it’s Other People’s sex lives and their self-determination. So you can shoot an “intruder” who rings your doorbell but God forbid you might have control over the intruder within your own body.
#2 Rob Jase
March 7, 2011

That’s because righties can’t tell the difference from the goverment and their religion.

They want the government to stay out of their lives but they want their religion to take over everyone’s life.
#3 bob koepp
March 7, 2011

Even if there were a “medical reason” for the ultrasound (which there is not), I think that, even in Texas, people have a legal right to refuse the procedure.

As an aside, I wish people on both sides of the “debate” over reproductive freedom would realize that appeals “medical reasons” in this context are a distraction.
#4 Monado, FCD
March 7, 2011

So, in this case they’re mandating an increase in health costs?

I used to think that every anti-choice protester who sneaked into an abortion clinic when they or their daughter or their mistress got pregnant should sign an agreement to be videotaped asking for the abortion and agreeing that if they ever picket a clinic again or call for legislation against abortion the tape may be broadcast and released into the public domain. But now I’m starting to think that maybe they should also be tattooed with the information.

The head of the federal justice department in Canada was asking for legislation re-criminalizing abortion at the same time as he was forging his mistress’s husband’s signature on her request for an abortion. The hypocrites won’t even follow their own rules.
#5 Joffan
March 7, 2011

Monado – Really. You think we should tattoo women who have abortions? With friends like you, the pro-choice movement needs no enemies…

Also – without a link on the Canadian story, I do not find it credible. Keep it real eh.
#6 mxh
March 7, 2011

@#2

They want the government to stay out of their lives but they want their religion to take over everyone’s life.

There’s that, but a more complete description is that they want the government to stay out of people’s lives as long as those people are white, Christian men, otherwise, they prefer the exact opposite.
#7 stewart
March 8, 2011

Joffan, you might need to read more carefully.
As for the ‘non-credible’ Canadian story, try Wikipedia:

Francis Fox was appointed to the Cabinet of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1976 when he became Solicitor General of Canada. Bilingual, Fox was seen as an up-and-comer in the Liberal cabinet, and even a potential party leader. However, he was forced to resign on January 27, 1978, when it became known that he had forged the signature of his then girlfriend’s husband on a form granting permission for her to have an abortion.

Any questions?
#8 Joffan
March 8, 2011

stewart, what might I need to read more carefully? I was not the one to suggest tattooing women. I regard that as an obscene suggestion whether applied to allies or opponents.

And as for the Canadian story, I accept the reality of Fox’s forgery but look in vain for the simultaneous re-criminalization concept. I also question the relevance of the whole anecdote. 1978 was a long time ago, and Monado gave no indication that the reference was that old.

Take my comment as it is meant – a challenge to keep humane and honest. There are battles worth fighting, but this combination of callousness and dissimulation is not the way to win them.
#9 Albanaeon
March 8, 2011

So, here’s a question. If it is going to be a mandated procedure, is Texas going to pony up for it. Or is it just another thing to push onto the women to make themselves feel better. Then I’d be a two for one special. They’d get to be dicks to women and about money.
#10 Wow
March 9, 2011

“a more complete description is that they want the government to stay out of people’s lives as long as those people are white, Christian men”

An even more complete and accurate description is they want government out of THEIR lives. Getting into other people’s lives is fine.

NOTE: when it’s a foreign corporation, they want government to give them a kick, unless they’re invested in it.
#11 Barry
March 9, 2011

“As an aside, I wish people on both sides of the “debate” over reproductive freedom would realize that appeals “medical reasons” in this context are a distraction.”

Posted by: bob koepp

Oh, BS
#12 Silent Service
March 9, 2011

Is this all the GOP stands for now? Government mandated molestation? Can we enact a law that requires the sponsor of any bill requiring an unnecessary medical procedure to be forcibly subjected to that procedure first? How many GOP members would step back and think if they had to get anally probed first? Never mind, I’m sure most of them would enjoy it now that I think about it.
#13 Jennifer P.
March 14, 2011

Here via Feministe

The pictures really are worth 1,000 words, thanks for sharing. Maybe the implement can be labeled somehow with the words “Courtesy of the Texas GOP” so you can really think about it while it’s penetrating you.
#14 gdragn
March 17, 2012

I think Doonesbury’s treatment of this issue completelt sums up this latest GOP travesty…