Excerpt from a funny-but-freaky article (via Jezebel.com) that lists the possible constitutional conflicts of the Personhood Bill:

IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One provision of Virginia’s Personhood bill is the particularly troubling pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound requirement. I don’t know how many of you have had a vaginal ultrasound, but for the uninitiated, it’s like this: a vaginal ultrasound wand looks like this (for perspective on how big it is— the handle is a size that’s comfortably grippable by an average adult sized hand. So it’s about as long as some dildos and slightly thinner. It’s definitely not a fun experience— like being vaginally probed by a lubed-up handle of a lint roller, and now, because some Very Concerned Non-Doctor Dudes said so, every woman seeking an abortion will be required to have one. This feels a lot like illegal, and super creepy forced search of a person’s body.

But, more importantly (because obviously the fetus is more important), what if the fetus does not consent to have his home (the uterus) searched? Think about the rights of an unborn protohuman for a goddamn second, Virginia legislators! Give a tiny mass some privacy.

 Okay, women, first a foremost: if you don’t want a baby but want to have sex, have some form of birth control to avoid this mess. 

BUT, accidents do happen. Condoms break, birth control pills backfire, and then there’s immaculate conceptions (ha).

Why are people so concerned over the rights of an unborn baby fetus, a thing that can’t speak or think or really have any knowledge of anything…and yet women are, per usual, downgraded from their constitutional rights?

3 months ago · 0 notes