HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Virginia Governor Backs o...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:32 AM

Virginia Governor Backs off Ultrasound Bill

RICHMOND, Va., Feb. 22 (UPI) -- Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell backed off his unqualified support for a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, his office said.

At the same time, state lawmakers worked behind the scenes to soften the measure, The (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot and The Washington Post reported.

McDonnell, who campaigned as an opponent of elective abortion, initially said he would sign the measure if it made it to his desk. He now will no longer make that commitment, his office said.

"Our position is: If the General Assembly passes this bill the governor will review it, in its final form, at that time," spokesman Tucker Martin said in a statement cited by the Post.

Martin declined to explain the reason for McDonnell's change. The governor can sign, veto or amend the legislation.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/02/22/Va-governor-backs-off-ultrasound-bill/UPI-99291329895800/?spt=hs&or=tn

52 replies, 6724 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 52 replies Author Time Post
Reply Virginia Governor Backs off Ultrasound Bill (Original post)
NightOwwl Feb 2012 OP
ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2012 #1
Surya Gayatri Feb 2012 #4
Blue_Tires Feb 2012 #8
stillwaiting Feb 2012 #39
SemperEadem Feb 2012 #41
ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2012 #42
SemperEadem Feb 2012 #51
Tx4obama Feb 2012 #2
Surya Gayatri Feb 2012 #3
ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2012 #6
ladywnch Feb 2012 #18
Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #5
Happyhippychick Feb 2012 #11
xxqqqzme Feb 2012 #36
Manifestor_of_Light Feb 2012 #48
lanlady Feb 2012 #7
livetohike Feb 2012 #9
catbyte Feb 2012 #10
Liberal_Stalwart71 Feb 2012 #12
yellowcanine Feb 2012 #20
MH1 Feb 2012 #30
Robbins Feb 2012 #13
jimmac1959 Feb 2012 #15
virgdem Feb 2012 #19
jimmac1959 Feb 2012 #14
jimmac1959 Feb 2012 #16
marias23 Feb 2012 #17
sofa king Feb 2012 #21
marias23 Feb 2012 #22
sofa king Feb 2012 #34
CreekDog Feb 2012 #45
csziggy Feb 2012 #23
Voice for Peace Feb 2012 #33
DebJ Feb 2012 #24
DebJ Feb 2012 #26
DebJ Feb 2012 #27
julian09 Feb 2012 #28
DebJ Feb 2012 #38
just1voice Feb 2012 #25
CTyankee Feb 2012 #32
rocktivity Feb 2012 #29
xxqqqzme Feb 2012 #35
rocktivity Feb 2012 #37
Gringostan Feb 2012 #31
Gin Feb 2012 #40
ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2012 #43
Zambero Feb 2012 #44
zentrum Feb 2012 #46
aquart Feb 2012 #47
underpants Feb 2012 #49
sdghjtyjty Feb 2012 #50
Vinca Feb 2012 #52

Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:34 AM

1. My suggestion, ask mrs. McDonnell.

Wanna bet she had a few choice words for him?
"honey? If you honestly expect to sleep with me again, I have a surprise for you. Now, where did I put those garden shears."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:59 AM

4. Hey CA, I was thinking the same thing! See post Nį3...

I wrote it before I read your reply!
SG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:35 AM

8. I wish...

McDonnell is pretty smart and has done a good job playing "good cop" to his extremist "bad cop" cronies (Cuccinelli and the state house loons)...Promotes and goads the RW fringe on the sly, and plays the "let's be reasonable" card just when the commonwealth is on the brink of writing batshit insanity into law...

And as another poster said downthread, he also has a hard-on for the veep nod, so he wants to look sane for appearance's sake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 02:04 PM

39. He is my governor and you are absolutely correct.

Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

He's a very dangerous politician as far as far as right wing Republicans go.

He knows to hide the crazy, he does it well, but his beliefs are absolutely, bat shit, RW crazy, and he gets a lot of stuff done towards that agenda.

He's a hell of a lot smarter than George Allen (not that that's saying very much).

** Edited to correct spelling mistake **

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 02:49 PM

41. there was some woman recently

in some state legislature who actually said that if married women didnt' want to get pregnant, that those couples should practice abstinence. Honestly.

here is it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/17/1065925/-NH-legislator-suggests-married-couples-practice-abstinence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 02:58 PM

42. Is the trend in our country towards liberal solutions so frightening to them

that they are forced to try with all their might, to fuck up our country one last time?

I hope that is the case, because the alternative, a fungal like growth of Tea Baggers and christian lunatics will kill this country, once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 07:25 AM

51. Good question

I dont' know how someone can actually believe that they can tell a married couple when they can and cannot have sex. I mean, it takes a whole lot of gall to interfere in the business of married people. That is an area where no one except the couple belongs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:38 AM

2. I think The House will not pass the bill - it's way too controversial now. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:56 AM

3. As I said in another thread...

His own wife may be giving him grief about this--not to mention any other females in his immediate entourage.

Aristophanes' Lysistrata knew what she was doing--cut off conjugal contact and they might listen to you.
SG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:06 AM

6. They cannot have predicted the scorn they will receive at home.

Of course, if they were rational, they would never pull shit like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:25 AM

18. I've been invoking Lysistrata for years now. We DO have the power and rethug males are

just beginning to realize it and it scares the living shit out of them. I believe this is why all the anti women activity this year. They know they're out numbered and they're trying to get us back chained to the stoves, barefoot and pregnant and this is their only way to accomplish it.

A group of African women did this just last year. They dropped all conjugal activities so as to "fast for peace". According to their faith one can not engage in sex when on a relgious fast. Their men were welcome to come and join the women in prayer, but that was IT. Miraculously, the war ended. It would seem the men's desire for pooty-tang was stronger than their desire for war (like we didn't already know their dicks run their lives.)

If we women were actually serious about getting things fixed we would do this (and if they 'resist' our efforts/convictions---one Lorena Bobbit, two Lorena Bobbit - I think they'd get the picture).......we could take it back and fix it all.

I know this sounds all militaristic/over the top, but understand, women are under siege in this country and the longer we just duck and cover hoping it all works out okay, the more their going to imprison us. We need to go on the attack to protect ourselves, cause ain't no one else gonna do it for us.


just MHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:08 AM

5. The insertion of a sonogram "wand" into unwilling woman, fits legal criterion of RAPE

This same kind of bill was passed in Texas, which currently has a repub. supermajority in both houses, and can do whatever it wants to.

However, the insertion of a sonogram wand or any object, into the vagina of especially a non-consenting woman, meets most classic legal descriptions of rape.

In Texas we call it "Republican Rape."

There are some legal precidents for this sort of thing, some exceptions (like cavity searches in prisons?). But arguably, these exceptions do not apply.

Informal and/or legal challenges to Republican-sponsored rape, seem to be carrying some weight here.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:34 AM

11. EXACTLY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 01:15 PM

36. That is the perfect frame for this assault.

Call it what it is! It should be repeated over and over. It should be 'the bill, known as republican rape among women, was introduced....'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:36 PM

48. Rape by Instrumentality.

That's what it's called in some states. I don't know if this applies in Texas or not.

Although I got my law degree from a Texas law school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:22 AM

7. Our governor is angling for a VP nod

So he's backing away from the Taliban fringe of the VA GOP. He doesn't want to give Democrats the chance to say he's part of the Republican war on women.

Smart move, Bob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lanlady (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:27 AM

9. That's the first thing I thought of when I read the OP

I don't think backing away is going to work too well for him, because the word is out there that he wanted this in the first place and that fact will never go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lanlady (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:29 AM

10. I agree, lanlady

I've been saying if McDonald signs either this travesty or that moranic "personhood" bill, he can kiss any national aspirations goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lanlady (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:40 AM

12. Exactly!! He wants to be VP, so he knows what's good for him!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lanlady (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:36 AM

20. Yep but now all he has done is piss off both sides. And he likely will sign an amended bill

which only violates women's rights "a little."

So it makes it less likely that having him on the ticket will put the state in the Republican column.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 12:24 PM

30. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:14 AM

13. VA

Republicans are starting to realize this bill can backfire on them.Mcdonnell Is hoping If Romney survies to be picked as VP.If that bill
passes and he signs that Into law he Gives Obama and Biden something to bash them on.Just Imagne In VP Debate between
Biden and Mcdonnell Biden blasting Mcdonnell for that extreme law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robbins (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:08 AM

15. FIGHTIN' JOE !!

would love to see Biden duke it out with McDonnell on veep stage. Bobby would fair no better than Sister Sarah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robbins (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:27 AM

19. That's so true...

I live in VA Beach and my state senator, Wagner, is starting to have second thoughts about both bills. I think it is finally hitting home with many of the saner pub legislators that passing these bills will be political poison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:10 AM

16. VEEP

McDonnell odds on favorite to be picked as veep with Romney ??? ( or will it be Rubio ??)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:25 AM

17. Men Required to be Catherterized to Obtain Driver's License

Are there any laws that tell men what they can or cannot do to/with their bodies? (Please post, if you know.) But there are a number regarding woman's bodies. Moreover, the laws are very personal and harsh. I think men have a lot of issues with women. They have no problem with other people (i.e. women) being forced to carry a child they do not want even if it is the subject of rape or incest. They have no problem with an object being inserted into a womanís vagina if they want an abortion. Perhaps a little 14th Amendment equality is called for here. I will support the Virginia law if they introduce an amendment calling for a catheter to be inserted into a manísí penis if they want a driverís license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marias23 (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:14 AM

21. We have to be observed while urinating for drug tests.

I know it's not even close.

But I'm a really big fan of the "empathy counter-attack," as you suggest. Conservatives have a lot of trouble putting themselves in others' shoes, especially male conservatives.

But when it happens to them, suddenly it's a bad idea. Suddenly they don't like it. If we can tie their own loss to someone else's they become decent people.

Sort of like in that Flannery O'Connor story, where the Misfit says something along the lines of, "she'd have been a good person if there had been someone holding a gun to her head her whole life."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:24 AM

22. So do women.

Try again. "Empathy counter attack?? Perhaps the "Golden Rule" is better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marias23 (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 01:02 PM

34. (Psst. I'm agreeing with you.)

Why would I wish to try again when you could not take the time to read seven sentences before lashing out at me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:33 PM

45. That's not a law

It's a practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marias23 (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:29 AM

23. One state rep. introduced an amendment that required digital prostate exams for men

Who wanted Viagra and similar products - which IS medically recommended since those drugs increase the chance of prostate problems. That rep was a woman and of course, her amendment was not allowed into the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 01:01 PM

33. maybe an amendment requiring proof of stable marriage to one woman

in order to obtain a viagra prescription

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:52 AM

24. A really big stink needs to be created about the refusal to televise

Pelosi's hearings. These hearings are not a matter of national defense, so what in the world is the reasoning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DebJ (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:58 AM

26. I called my Reps office and asked why they won't televise it.

But since he asked for my address I'm not likely to get a quick response.
Would be nice if everyone called their Reps and asked.
Would be nice if Rachel called and asked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DebJ (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 12:04 PM

27. So now I am on hold with Boner's office. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DebJ (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 12:18 PM

28. He wants to make sure you live in his district.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to julian09 (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 01:48 PM

38. After a long wait I got put through to voice mail.

Asked him why he wouldn't let Pelosi be televised and then said
I'm not surprised I ended up with voice mail, since you don't listen to
what the people want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:53 AM

25. Repigs with presidential hopes don't like being nationally disgraced

 

That's all that is going on in McDonnell's pea-brain, purely psychotic self-interest like all Virginia repukes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to just1voice (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 12:56 PM

32. A photo of McDonell signing that bill would make a great campaign poster...

for the Dems...it would be nice to remind people again and again and again "what he did."

No wonder he backed off...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 12:22 PM

29. ...(D)elegates and governorís staff were scheduled...to strike a compromise

after learning that some ultrasounds could be more invasive than first thought, according to two officials who were aware of the meeting but not authorized to speak about it publicly. Many of the billís supporters were apparently unaware of how invasive the procedure could be...
link

It's so invasive, in fact, that the law may violate the new federal guidelines for defining rape!


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 01:10 PM

35. That's what happens

when legislators decide to play doctor. I do not understand how medical procedures can be legislated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxqqqzme (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 01:33 PM

37. They knew damn well how invasive it would be

So invasive it would humilitate women into having their babies!


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 12:48 PM

31. Republicans have been trying to rape America...

Republicans have been trying to rape America, one bill at a time. While going after women directly with this bill; we must all fight them - take back our city governments, take back our state governments, and take back our country. This insanity has gone far enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 02:16 PM

40. Its political suicide

And they are starting to see that....shame on the woman rep who sponsored the bill.....she would be ashamed of herself.

Bring it on fools......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gin (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 02:59 PM

43. she doesn't care. She thinks it is effective in scaring off the last few abortions

despite the immobility of the USSC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:33 PM

44. There's no way to "soften" this

Other than scrapping it altogether. And the mere fact that it is championed by the entirety of some Republican state legislative delegations speaks volumes about where this party intends to steer women's health and personal freedoms -- into a deep trench, stone cold dead and buried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:35 PM

46. I think we've been set up.

Their goal is to get "personhood" into law. That is the really huge purpose of this bill.

So first they put in all these violent invasive clearly unpassable medical procedures in it. Which they then agree---as if chastened---to take out. Which leaves the worst part intact and makes them look like they "listened" to women. The outcry will die down.....and they wil get their dangerous "personhood" concept.

Which is all they need to overturn Roe v Wade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 04:10 PM

47. "Soften it"? KILL IT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:42 PM

49. The Va House (General Assembly) scrapped the invasive requirement at the last minute

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)


Response to NightOwwl (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 07:27 AM

52. It doesn't really matter how they change it.

The bill still requires unnecessary medical treatment and will cost a women several hundred dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread