http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/virginia-personhood-bill-defeated-senate_n_1297463.html

In an unexpected move, the Virginia Senate killed the state's personhood bill, a key victory for women's groups seeking to battle the current proposals on reproductive rights.

By a 24-14 vote, the Senate agreed to a motion by Senate Republican Leader Tommy Norment (R-James City County) to push consideration of the bill to next year's legislative session. A coalition of Democrats and Republicans in the tied Senate voted for the motion; six Republican and 18 Democratic senators voted to push consideration of the bill back. Two Democratic senators abstained.

The bill was expected to pass the Senate with Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) providing a tie-breaking vote. Norment said he believed the bill needed more study.

The bill passed a Senate committee, with Republican support, earlier in the day, and it passed the Republican-dominated House of Delegates last week. Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) had indicated that he would sign the bill.

The proposal, sponsored by Delegate Robert Marshall (R), would have granted "personhood" status to unborn children, including embryos. Similar proposals have been defeated in other states, including in a statewide referendum last year in Mississippi.

The bill's defeat comes days after McDonnell and legislative Republicans agreed to amend the bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before receiving an abortion to exclude trans-vaginal ultrasounds on women who do not consent to the practice. The ultrasound bill was passed by the House just after the personhood bill.

The defeat of the personhood bill comes amid a flurry of state-level proposals on reproductive rights, including a proposal in New Hampshire to end the state's mandate that religious organizations provide birth control insurance coverage for employees and the national debate over the Obama administration's requirement that religious organizations provide birth control insurance coverage.

Democratic groups are cheering the personhood bill's defeat.

"This is a huge win for women in the Republican war on a women's right to choose and women's health," said Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee spokeswoman Carolyn Fiddler.

Andy Jenks from NBC News 12 in Virginia tweeted that Sen. Dick Saslaw (D) is in support of the move.

"[Personhood] is on life support, and there ain't a doctor around for 200 miles," Jenks tweeted, quoting Saslaw.

Yeah! There were so many problems with that bill.

Indeed!

Texas is the only state that does have mandatory transvaginal ultrasound, which I think is bull ****.


Here is Jon Stewart's take on it, kinda funny.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-21-2012/punanny-state---virginia-s-transvaginal-ultrasound-bill

I guess its just

if church hospitals arent mandated to perform abortions, women should not be mandated to undergo pre abortion invasive procedures,,,,


that word 'mandate' always causes controversy,, where as
'option' is much more reasonable

Yep,it definitely needs a LOT more study!
Acually they ought to scrap it alltogether,and start afresh!

Thinking this time,instead of Knee-jerking!

I fail to rationally understand how bills like that even exist in the first place. Ah yes, that's right - religious guilt-trip cover for simply trying to keep every last fetus (read: future taxpayer and potential idiot voter) alive and breathing... way to go republicans. Way to be.

<<< a democrat who is pro life, feels medical prerequisites already exist for many procedures and wouldnt oppose such prerequisites for this one(abortion IS a surgery of sorts), just on the fence as to what those prerequisites should be


I dont think anyone should go into a medical procedure ignorant, and a certain amount of medical explanation should go along with any procedure,,,,,how realistic that explanation should be ,,,hard to determine

when I had my hysterectomy, they showed me the uterus, explained exactly what they would do , the risks, and the benefits

I think the same should be done with abortions,,,but where 'the law' would come into it,, I dont know

Do you really think those who are getting abortions are going in without anything explained to them at all?

I dont know what is explained. I know at one time, women receiving hysterectomies were not explained the risks and reality of recovery

I dont know when or IF that became mandated, but Im glad I had as much information about the procedure as possible before making a decision,,,,,,Im glad I was able to appreciate the seriousness of it

Why not find out, rather than assuming they're going into it not knowing a thing?

Im not assuming anything, just posting my position on the issue

if they do it, great, if they dont , I think it would be in the patients best interest that they do

You're assuming that there are patients out there who aren't finding out what they need to, it seems. I guess I'd just try to find out more information before I assumed women were going through getting abortions without the needed information.

I have heard the stories from women who didnt realize until afterword the seriousness, that is the only information I have access to unless I survey doctors and trust they will tell me that they didnt give the information,,,,,,

Did you ask them why they went through a procedure like that without getting all the information they should have had?

no

I would guess similar to why we eat fast food without finding out whats in it,,,,, at the time, we want what we want and dont CARE to find out,,,

but I hold they physician to a bit higher knowledge(they paid to receive it and are paid well to dispense it,, in my opinion)


than the patient

Oh, thank goodness!




14 still voted for it? Blech.



I wish our politics weren't so polarized.



It's not a republican war, its a fundamentalist christian war. There are many republicans who oppose bills like this, but the democrats would rather convince as many people as possible to hate the republicans.

took a while for them to accept africans as persons too

,,time will tell

Republicans (not all) still support things like that to get the support from the fundamentalist christians.

Yeah, Repubs pander to the fundies, and Dems pander to the women's rights groups. Both sides fan the flames of righteous indignation, both sides demonize the other.

I just think that people should form opinions on an issue by issue basis, and stay away from the dogmas which shape people into strongly identifying as 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

It's part of how politicians, corporations, and special interest groups manipulate the voting public.

In these discussions there tends to be a lot of views which stray from the real problem.

The fact is that a woman’s right to privacy and due process, as outlined in the Constitution and interpreted through many Supreme court cases, includes the right of women (and men) to self-determined procreative choices.

Any attempt of the States to undermine legal abortions can have only one result – all such attempts must also remove a woman’s right to privacy and due process.

We have seen this trend increasing for several years with the absurdity of encroachments upon women’s rights becoming more and more obvious. Along with the other areas in which women continue to battle inequality, this current trend against a woman’s procreative choice has increasingly been seen as an attack on women. AND IT IS.

What I see goes beyond the simple attack on half the population – what I see is the lack of connection between the people and the social contract.

Our social contract includes a respect for the choice that people make regarding their religious beliefs and values. Another value, we have placed in our social contract, is that all freedom, liberty, & rights, of individuals must necessarily include some limitation. The test that determines the limitation also determines the point at which ones freedom exists at the cost of another person’s freedom. That is where the limitation is drawn.

When we begin ascribing belief systems into the values of our social contract, we are no longer subscribing to a contract that values civil and social equality through the ideals of liberty and freedom for all.

Our social contract declares that people have the right to privacy in sensitive personal matters, and the highest court systems in our land have agreed that this privacy extends to matters of procreative choice. Such privacy does not exclude men, they have access to birth control and aids for sexual dysfunction, without hindrance.

Whether one agrees with the statements I’ve just made or not – thousands do agree and we see it in the current trend we are calling an attack on women’s rights. So intent are some people to force their belief systems onto society that they go so far as attempting to declare personhood at conception and/or to enforce civil rights for the unborn.

How can we possibly consider those options when we have NO RIGHT under our current social contract to infringe on the privacy of women (or men) in matters of procreative choice?

We are not even suppose to know these intimate facts unless the person confides them to us. When a woman confides to a doctor that she thinks she’s pregnant and the doctor confirms it – IT IS NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. What action the woman takes is HER CHOICE and becomes a PRIVATE medical and contractual matter between herself and the medical staff who she has chosen for medical attention.

Professional medical staff operates under laws that are meant to uphold privacy and privilege of the doctor/patient relationship.

Right now women must be able to understand the value of having a social contract and need to protect it, partially because it is women’s right that are currently in the forefront, but unless we protect our rights by supporting the values of our social contract, any infringement on our rights will escalate into uncertain rights for any and everyone.

This is not a fight about when life begins – that fight is about whether abortion is even legal. That battle has been fought and if needs to be addressed again, then it needs to be addressed in conjunction with the courts and our social contract.

Until someone has a case worth presenting in opposition to that law, then we have to proceed in accordance with the law and stop trying to undermine it using discriminatory means.

In fact, what we are fighting now is blatant discrimination and disregard for our legal rights of privacy.

If you don’t agree please explain your point of view because I certainly can’t see these current events any other way.