Governor of Virginia Shifts Position on Abortion Bill

The bill had drawn intense national attention in recent days, with a large protest by women’s health groups over the weekend and spoofs on left-leaning television shows.

In a political year that was suppposed to be all about the economy, this was the second instance in a month in which a public outcry  organized in part by women’s health advocates through social media caused a reversal on the issue of abortion. 

The governor’s decision not to support the bill capped several days of brinkmanship in which opponents of the measure lobbied furiously against it, galvanizing opposition by drawing on the image of male lawmakers mandating a procedure that requires inserting a probe into the vagina. One Democrat was prompted to denounce it as a “rape” bill.

Opponents presented what they said were 33,000 signatures protesting the measure. At the same time, the mostly Republican supporters in the legislature kept putting off debate on the measure, raising suspicions that the governor might be balking.

Finally, on Wednesday afternoon, Mr. McDonnell, a rising star in the Republican Party who is often talked about as a candidate for vice president, told Republican delegates to make changes that softened the requirements in the legislation. Some political analysts speculated that the decision was made with an eye to a broader national audience that might not look favorably on the passage of such a conservative bill.

This month the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation yielded to pressure by affiliates and women’s rights advocates and reversed its decision to largely end decades of partnership with Planned Parenthood.

In Virginia, in a written statement issued minutes before the House of Delegates was to debate the bill on Wednesday afternoon, Mr. McDonnell said that after discussion with doctors, lawyers and legislators, he had concluded that amendments were needed. He called for changes stipulating that the ultrasound be abdominal rather than vaginal. A doctor would be required to offer the next level of ultrasound, most often vaginal, but a woman would be free to reject it.

“Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state,” the governor said in the statement.

The Family Foundation, a strong backer of the ultrasound bill, made reference to the Komen decision in a note to supporters blasting Mr. McDonnell’s reversal, saying that it was “extremely disappointed in this outcome,” particularly, it said, “given the strong pro-life credentials of this governor.”

The change — which passed the House in a vote of 65 to 32 — softens the bill considerably, but did not abolish the requirement that women have an ultrasound. If it is signed into law, Virginia would become the 10th state to require such procedures, though the requirement has been stayed by court rulings in two states, Oklahoma and North Carolina.

Specifically, the bill’s new wording would require a doctor to offer the woman a different type of ultrasound if the fetus is not viewable through an abdominal screening, but not require her to have one.

That opponents of the bill were successful in getting the language softened was a major success for them, particularly considering that vaginal ultrasounds are often administered before abortions anyway. A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood said the group routinely includes ultrasounds “as part of the thorough medical practice of abortion care,” and gives the woman the option of viewing the image. But the group said a legal requirement that women undergo such a screening was politically motivated and “is the very definition of government intrusion.”

Erik Eckholm and Jennifer Preston contributed reporting.

View the original article here

National Briefing | South: Virginia: Ex-Lacrosse Player Convicted in Killing of His Former Girlfriend

The beliefs of a Catholic media network have put it at odds with the Obama administration.

Room for Debate asks: What is missing from this sprawling legislation, and what should be cut?

View the original article here

The Lede Blog: Virginia Lawmakers Vote on Modified Ultrasound Bill

5:20 p.m. | Updated Republican lawmakers in Virginia voted today on a controversial bill that would force a woman to get an ultrasound before having an abortion and require doctors to ask whether she wants to hear the fetal heartbeat and obtain a printed image of the fetus.

The original bill, which drew a protest of almost 1,000 people to the state Capitol in Richmond on Monday, was amended by Republican legislative leaders working with Republican Governor Bob McDonnell after it drew intense national attention.

The changes, outlined in this article by my colleague Sabrina Tavernise, included no longer requiring women to have a specific type of pelvic ultrasound before the abortion, known as a transvaginal ultrasound. The changes also included having the doctor ask the woman if she wants to see an image from the ultrasound rather than requiring the doctor to attach a copy of the image to the woman’s medical file.

The bill was approved 65 to 32 in the Republican-led House of Delegates. The original measure was approved by the Senate earlier this month.

Mr. McDonnell said he would sign this modified bill.

“I am pro-life,” Mr. McDonnell said in a statement prior to the vote that outlined the series of amendments that were negotiated on Tuesday night and earlier today with Republican leaders. “I believe deeply in the sanctity of innocent human life and believe governments have a duty to protect human life. The more our society embraces a culture of life for all people, the better country we will have.”

The bill, requiring an ultrasound 24 hours prior to an abortion, was denounced by opponents who said it interfered with the private relationship between doctors and patients.

“The Legislature should not be playing doctor,” said Tarina Keene, executive director of Naral Pro-Choice Virginia. “This is a decision that should be made by a medical professional and offered to a woman. That means those two people should be making the decision, and not the government. It should not be mandated.”

The bill is the latest skirmish in a battle over abortion, contraception and the role of government in women’s health care issues that has been waging online and across the cable television in recent weeks.

The issue of contraception and abortion is also emerging as a hot issue in the 2012 Republican presidential race with Rick Santorum fueling the debate with his remarks on pre-natal testing. Mr. Santorum said he opposed free screenings for birth defects under President Obama’s health care law because they would encourage more women to have abortions, which would “cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.”

In Virginia, some of the same voices on both sides of the uproar over the Susan G. Komen foundation’s decision to cut Planned Parenthood funds and the move by Catholic bishops to block insurance coverage for contraception have been weighing in on this measure.

Anti-abortion advocates believe the rule will persuade some women to change their minds on abortion, while supporters of abortion rights say that such state requirements interfere with a woman’s privacy and with decisions that should be between a medical professional and a patient.

The legislation prompted Jon Stewart to make fun of Virginia’s lawmaker on the Comedy Central’s “Daily Show” Tuesday night. And the national conversation over contraception became fodder for NBC’s “Saturday Night Live”, with Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers focusing on a panel of five men invited to discuss birth control at a House Republican hearing.

Earlier on Wednesday, four organizations, including Planned Parenthood and Naral Pro-Choice America, presented petitions with 30,000 signatures of people who oppose the bill.

On the other side, supporters of the bill from the Family Foundation were using their Facebook page to urge people to contact their lawmakers and vote in favor of the legislation.

After the posted Mr. McDonnell’s statement on the ultrasound bill, detailing the amendments, some people commented on the Family Foundation’s Facebook page, saying that they thought the changes were reasonable enough. Another person said “McDonnell is more concerned about being Mitt Romney’s running mate than he is about unborn children’s lives,” referring to speculation that Mr. McDonnell backed away from the bill to make him a more politically attractive prospect as a vice presidential running mate.

View the original article here

Virginia Bill Requiring Ultrasound Before Abortion Nears Vote

The bill, which could pass the Republican-led House of Delegates as early as Tuesday, is one of the stronger ultrasound laws passed by states in recent years. If it is adopted, Virginia will become the eighth state to require ultrasounds before abortions, a rule that anti-abortion forces hope will cause some women to change their minds but that women’s advocates call an effort to shame women and interfere with their privacy. The Senate, which is split evenly along party lines, narrowly adopted the bill this month.

Mr. McDonnell, a Republican who sponsored similar legislation when he was a lawmaker, initially voiced strong support. But the bill has drawn intense public attention, and a spokesman struck a more muted tone over the weekend, a shift that opponents said could mean that the governor might amend it before signing it. A throng of the bill’s opponents held a vigil outside the Statehouse on Monday in protest.

“If the bill passes, he will review it, in its final form, at that time,” said the spokesman, Martin Tucker. In Virginia, a governor can amend a bill after final passage by the legislature.

The nature and tone of legislation is particularly important for Mr. McDonnell, political analysts say, because he is seen as a possible contender for vice president on the Republican ticket and could be calculating how the bill will be perceived by a national audience.

Requiring ultrasounds before abortions has become one of the principal tactics of the anti-abortion movement, with similar rules now in effect in seven states and being held up by legal challenges in two more — Oklahoma and North Carolina.

While the Virginia bill does require an ultrasound, it does not require the woman to view it, making it less strict than laws in Texas and Oklahoma, where the doctor must place the screen in front of the woman.

In its current form, Virginia’s bill requires that the ultrasound find and monitor the fetal heartbeat and provide an image of the shape of the fetus. As in other states with ultrasound laws, this will often require a probe to be inserted into the vagina. The nonintrusive abdominal ultrasound, on the other hand, often cannot capture the fetus at its small size in the first trimester, when most abortions are performed.

Vaginal ultrasounds are often performed by doctors before abortions anyway, but opponents say that the legal act of requiring it for nonmedical reasons is a violation of the doctor-patient relationship. Delegate Charniele L. Herring, a Democrat who opposes the bill, said the requirement that the probe be inserted vaginally was tantamount to “state-sponsored rape.”

Anti-abortion groups say that it is a tool for “informed consent,” and that they hope some women will be deterred when they see or hear about the physical traits of the developing fetus.

As in other states, Virginia’s rule would impose a 24-hour wait between the ultrasound and the abortion, which critics say adds unnecessary expense and inconvenience. It would also require that a printout of the ultrasound image be placed in a woman’s medical record, whether or not she wants to view it. Critics also say that in the current bill, the cost of the ultrasound will be borne by the woman.

“This is a forced bodily intrusion, and it could be going against a doctor’s better judgment,” said Tarina Keene, executive director of Naral Pro-Choice Virginia. “If a woman says she doesn’t want to have an ultrasound, she shouldn’t have to have one.”

Delegate Bob Marshall, a Republican who plans to vote for the bill, contends that the argument does not ring true because the abortion itself is far more invasive.

“The intrusion is already taking place,” he said.

View the original article here