Legislative Update

On January 12, I wrote about a bill before the Virginia Legislature that would require physicians who recommended hysterectomies to refer their patients to a (partisan) website that is anti-hysterectomy prior to performing surgery.

I looked the issue up today and found that saner heads sort of prevailed. The bill was changed to read:

HOUSE BILL NO. 217

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

(Proposed by the House Committee on Health and Human Services

on January 23, 2024)

(Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Orrock)

A BILL to direct the Department of Health Professions to review and make recommendations regarding informed consent requirements for hysterectomies and oophorectomies.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. § 1. That the Department of Health Professions shall, in consultation with the Board of Medicine, review the informed consent requirements surrounding a physician who recommends or performs a hysterectomy or an oophorectomy and determine if any regulations are needed regarding the educational information that is provided to a patient, as part of the informed consent process, in advance of undergoing such surgeries. The Department of Health Professions shall report its findings and recommendations to the Chairmen of the House Committee on Health and Human Services and the Senate Committee on Education and Health by November 1, 2024.

So, this is a recommendation for review of what is going on, and not a directive. For the moment, anyway.

The motion to review this went before the Virginia House on January 30, and it passed 51-49. 

You know what surprises me? That something this inane goes before the legislature. Of course, physicians must abide by rules and regulations and every industry, even healthcare, needs oversight because people are, well, basically stupid and some are even evil, but honestly, did this have to go before the Virginia Legislature? And where's the similar vote to review what physicians tell men who want vasectomies or need to have their prostrate removed or whatever the case may be?

I guess reviewing it is alright, only I don't know who makes up the House and Senate Committees on Health and Human Services. I do know the guy who initially sponsored this legislation is on the HHS committee, so that's not good. If they are sane people (and the guy who filed this bill initially would not be counted among the sane), it shouldn't be a problem. But these days, we have so many inmates running the asylums, it is hard to tell who is going to determine what.

It's All About Control

One of the hazards of being a news junkie and a former news reporter is that I know where to look for stuff. Today I spent time looking through the more than 1,000 bills that the Virginia Legislature will look at over the next 60 days.

This one stood out:

HB 217 Physicians; informed consent, disclosure of certain info. prior to hysterectomy or oophorectomy.

Introduced by: Robert D. Orrock, Sr. | all patrons    ...    notes | add to my profiles

SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:

Physicians; informed consent; disclosure of certain information prior to hysterectomy or oophorectomy. Requires physicians to obtain informed consent from a patient prior to performing a hysterectomy or oophorectomy. Prior to obtaining informed consent, physicians must inform the patient of the patient's freedom to withhold or withdraw consent, refer the patient to the Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services (HERS) Foundation, and provide the patient with anatomical diagrams relevant to the procedure. The bill allows physicians to forego obtaining informed consent when a hysterectomy or oophorectomy is performed in a life-threatening emergency situation.

Here's the bill:

HOUSE BILL NO. 217Offered January 10, 2024Prefiled January 4, 2024

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 54.1-2971.2, relating to physicians; informed consent; disclosure of certain information prior to hysterectomy or oophorectomy.

----------Patron-- Orrock----------Referred to Committee on Health and Human Services----------

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 54.1-2971.2 as follows:

§ 54.1-2971.2. Informed consent for hysterectomy and oophorectomy procedures.

A. Except as provided in subsection C, before a physician performs a hysterectomy or an oophorectomy, the physician shall obtain oral and written informed consent from the patient. The informed consent procedure must ensure that, at least two weeks before the patient signs the consent form, the patient is provided with:

1. Notice that the patient is free to withhold or withdraw consent to the procedure at any time before the hysterectomy or oophorectomy without affecting the patient's right to future care or treatment and without loss or withdrawal of any state or federally funded program benefits to which the patient might be otherwise entitled.

2. Referral to the Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services (HERS) Foundation and the HERS website.

3. A color copy of the following diagrams:

a. The female pelvic organs.

b. Supporting structures of the female pelvic organs.

c. Nerve supply to the uterus and ovaries.

d. Arteries and veins that provide blood supply to the female pelvic organs.

B. The patient shall sign a written statement before the hysterectomy or oophorectomy is performed indicating that the patient read and understood the information provided under subsection A and that the patient's attending physician and surgeon, or the attending physician's and surgeon's designee or designees, discussed this information with the patient. The statement must indicate that the patient's attending physician or the physician's designee advised the patient that the hysterectomy or oophorectomy will render the patient permanently sterile and incapable of having children.

C. The informed consent procedure under this section shall not be required when the hysterectomy or oophorectomy is performed in a life-threatening emergency situation in which the attending physician determines prior written informed consent is not possible.

The member of the legislature who introduced this bill is, of course, a Republican. The HERS website is anti-hysterectomy. I'm not saying every woman should have a hysterectomy, but I sure don't think there are hordes of women knocking on the doors of gynecologists asking for hysterectomies. Forcing women to view this website, which I have briefly reviewed and found to be deficit in information and certainly partisan, is all about control. I sure don't see legislature saying that men who want vasectomies or need a prostrate surgery or something have to go sign consent forms and view pictures of their anatomy before the procedure can take place.

I looked at the section on endometriosis, since that is what I had. The website offers no solutions for endometriosis except menopause. Was I to have suffered for 20 more years? I was in so much pain from my endometriosis that I couldn't function. Until I had my hysterectomy, and the pain was gone, I had no idea how bad the pain was. I don't know how I managed to even get out of bed, considering what I was living with.
Sure, now I am having additional problems from scar tissue and I'm almost back to where I was 30 years ago following that botched gallbladder surgery in 2013. Yes, some of that is related to the hysterectomy, but it's also related to the endometriosis and the vast amount of scarring I had. But I am grateful for the 20 years I had without so much pain, and if I must go on living with pain now, then that's my lot in life.

But at least I had the 20 years of no pain, and that's something I am grateful for.

And by the way, this should be a decision between a woman and her doctor. Why the hell is the state even trying to dictate what a woman does or doesn't do with her ovaries?

Happiness Challenge - Day 18

Today I sing a song of myself. I am a woman, and I have the right to vote (for the moment).

Just over 100 years ago today, Congress ratified the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote in 1920.

The Amendment passed Congress on June 4, 1919, and it was ratified on August 18, 1920.

From the government archives:

The 19th amendment legally guarantees American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle—victory took decades of agitation and protest. Beginning in the mid-19th century, several generations of woman suffrage supporters lectured, wrote, marched, lobbied, and practiced civil disobedience to achieve what many Americans considered a radical change of the Constitution. Few early supporters lived to see final victory in 1920.

Beginning in the 1800s, women organized, petitioned, and picketed to win the right to vote, but it took them decades to accomplish their purpose. Between 1878, when the amendment was first introduced in Congress, and August 18, 1920, when it was ratified, champions of voting rights for women worked tirelessly, but strategies for achieving their goal varied. Some pursued a strategy of passing suffrage acts in each state—nine western states adopted woman suffrage legislation by 1912. Others challenged male-only voting laws in the courts. Some suffragists used more confrontational tactics such as picketing, silent vigils, and hunger strikes. Often supporters met fierce resistance. Opponents heckled, jailed, and sometimes physically abused them.

By 1916, almost all of the major suffrage organizations were united behind the goal of a constitutional amendment. When New York adopted woman suffrage in 1917 and President Wilson changed his position to support an amendment in 1918, the political balance began to shift.

On May 21, 1919, the House of Representatives passed the amendment, and 2 weeks later, the Senate followed. When Tennessee became the 36th state to ratify the amendment on August 18, 1920, the amendment passed its final hurdle of obtaining the agreement of three-fourths of the states. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified the ratification on August 26, 1920, changing the face of the American electorate forever.

The campaign for woman suffrage was long, difficult, and sometimes dramatic; yet ratification did not ensure full enfranchisement. Decades of struggle to include African Americans and other minority women in the promise of voting rights remained. Many women remained unable to vote long into the 20th century because of discriminatory state voting laws.

If we are not careful, if we don't watch who we elect and understand what is going on around us, we will lose this right that our foremothers fought and died for.

Today, I am happy to sound the alarm: rights can be taken away. Be careful, watchful, and diligent.

No Laughing Matter

Last Friday as my husband and I shopped at a local grocery store for a few items to get us through the weekend, I experienced something weird and out of the ordinary.

My husband was pushing the cart, and he suddenly veered away from me, calling back over his shoulder that he needed to pick up soft drinks. Far down the aisle a woman was on a small ladder putting drinks up on the top shelf, and an older man, in a plaid shirt and blue jeans, passed her and then my husband.

I caught his gaze and he held it for just a beat too long. The next thing I knew, he was unbuckling his belt and then his hand was at his zipper.

I turned around and walked about five steps in the opposite direction. My instincts were shrieking that something was very wrong here, but my analytic self was saying he's just tucking in his shirt. I turned back around to see if my husband was returning to me and the guy was still standing there with his pants unzipped and his belt unbuckled. I didn't really see anything, but it was unnerving. He was leering and smirking, this perverted man.

As soon as my husband reached me and I spoke to him, the guy moved past us and I watched him leave without making a purchase, making a beeline for the parking lot.

It took me a while to straighten my thoughts out as to what had happened. I did not tell my husband about it until we were in the parking lot, as I was looking around to see if I could see Mr. Pervert.  The man was nowhere to be found. My husband was upset and frustrated with me for not saying something immediately. Ultimately, I went to the manager and asked that they review their security tapes and take whatever action they deemed appropriate.

This distressed me somewhat me because I have had a good deal of sexual harassment in my life, from when I was young on into adulthood. I have trouble dealing with males who are full of themselves and overtly patriarchal. So while in the grand scheme of things this is a minor incident, it still had an unsettling affect on me.

I felt violated, really.

That was bad enough, but then, in a sort of social experiment, I posted about it on Facebook. I knew what I was doing when I posted it (I essentially set a trap and a lot of people fell right into it - of their own free will, I hasten to add). Here we are in the new world of #metoo, when stories of sexual harassment and assault are mainstream and women are coming forward to say that the things we endure are not right. And what was the response I got? Teasing from males who said stupid things about the incident, and comments from some women about how they'd have laughed and pointed at Mr. Pervert as having a small penis, or something to that effect.

Some of the comments were proper, loaded with outrage and concern. By and large, it was split by those I know to be of one political party and those of another, and by gender. I had a number of private messages from people (women) who were aghast at the comments and very glad that I finally called out the commenters for continuing the legacy of rape culture. Only one person apologized, a man, who agreed he had been insensitive.

Here is the Facebook thread, which I captured Saturday before my computer modem died and I was unable to continue the conversation. Female names are blocked out with pink, male names by blue. I don't want to embarrass anyone in particular, but I do want people to think about what they are doing and saying. Nothing was funny about this minor incident, nothing at all.

I Heard the News Today, Oh Boy - 2017

I heard the news today, oh boy.
Gunman in the streets,
people running around in sheets.
Nothing made me laugh
Death and destruction in my path.

They marched the streets in Charlottesville.
In Las Vegas an old white guy set out to kill.
People running everywhere
Trying hard just to get out of there.
Politicians sent their "thoughts and prayers."

I heard the news today, oh boy.
Statues pulled down from their bases
Angry smirks on unfriendly faces.
People of color, and rightly so,
kneeling on astro-turf before the show.

The guy in the White House could only tweet
evil words of fear that had no beat.
No song to cover all this hate.
All the lawyers want to litigate.
No time to change the world, it's much too late.

I heard the news today, oh boy.
Hurricanes wiped out cities and small towns
When people cried, the White House tore them down.
Watching women's rights decline
Makes the Handmaid's Tale seem just sublime.

People dying every day
mass shootings now a news mainstay.
The only country here on the earth
where guns are worshipped more than any birth.
Tells me how little life is really worth.

I heard the news today, oh boy.
Spittle flying from the mouths
of angry white men from the south.
Seems they've had enough of me
and every woman who denied their blow-job fantasies.

People safely locked at home
groceries brought to them now by wordless drone.
Hell's here now, we've let it win
no need to die for our own sin.
Maybe time to try again?

I heard the news today, oh boy.
I could only turn away
I have nothing left to say.
No way I can help, I'll just cry
And wonder how many more today will die.

International Women's Day

Today, the annual International Women's Day, is a global day that celebrates the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future. Some places like China, Russia, Vietnam and Bulgaria, make International Women's Day a national holiday.

It isn't a national holiday in the United States. We don't celebrate women here. We castigate them, grab 'em where it counts, take away their reproductive rights, call them names, offer wolf whistles at them, offer non-support to one another because one woman might get something another doesn't have, and otherwise do little to enhance and develop the one half of the population that the other half cannot do without.

That's one side of it, anyway. I went to an all-women's undergraduate college whose motto was "Women Who Are Going Places Start at Hollins." In that environment, I heard no castigation, no catcalls, had no one grab me, and found support from teachers and fellow students unlike any that I had experienced. It remains my go-to place when I feel a need for support and encouragement. The campus is not far from me and sometimes I simply drive there and sit in the parking lot, watching the young women stroll across the grounds, backpacks flung behind them. The world is wide open to them.

I'd love to think they would find a better world - a better place - than I have. A place where jobs are welcoming and open, not stifling and under paid. A place where men treat women as human beings, not as objects. A place where the "male gaze," so prominent in movies and TV, has been eliminated. (The male gaze is the way in which the visual arts and literature depict the world and women from a masculine point of view, presenting women as objects of male pleasure. As an example, Hardee's commercials are good at this. That company, whose CEO was thankfully not named head of the federal Department of labor, has ads where voluptuous women in skin-tight clothing sit on a car and chow down on a hamburger like they're giving a guy a blow job.)

U.S. women frequently point to women in Arabic countries as counterpoints to indicate that we have come a long way, baby, but have we?

Women's rights are still denied in many parts of the world, where women live as second class citizens. In the US, men and women have the same legal rights, but we still experience discrimination against women on a large scale. While women in the United states may have the right to vote, but females are still discriminated against in terms of educational and career opportunities.

The pay gap, in particular, remains a problem in the United States. Gender gaps in labor force participation are associated with lower growth rates the world over.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, a woman doing the same job as a man can expect to earn only 79% of what the male does if she works in the United States. In other words, for every $100 the man earns, the woman earns only $79. Over time, this adds up significantly, leaving the woman to have less Social Security income in her retirement years, as well as having fewer dollars to spend annually during her work life.

Fifty-seven percent of all women participate in the labor force. (Almost all women work at home, unpaid, doing laundry, taking care of sick children or parents, or simply being a mom. Staying at home ain't easy.) The most common jobs for women are secretaries/administrative assistants, teachers, and nurses. Among the top 25 most common jobs for women, being a CEO is not one of them.

Here's a little graphic of what has changed for U.S. women over the last 50 years:

One of those "helps," the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), is in the process of being repealed and "replaced" by the current Republican Administration. The new proposal, unveiled yesterday, is not being met with much pomp and circumstance even from within the GOP, so it remains to be seen how that will affect women if and when it passes. Obviously, Republicans will continue their war on women's reproductive rights and their ability to manage their own health care. Apparently some of the good ol' boys still believe women shouldn't run when they menstruate, or sweat, or otherwise exert themselves, for fear of a fainting spell a la Scarlett O'Hara. "Don't worry your pretty little head about it," a phrase I heard frequently growing up, seems to be the political mantra when it comes to the so-called fairer sex.

But we have to worry about it, because no one is going to care of me but me, just as no one is going to take care of you but you. I am fortunate to have a loving and respectful husband, but not everyone woman is. Lots of women are married to assholes who do not deserve them.

Nor will my husband live forever. Even though I am not healthy, the odds still favor my outliving him. Women outlive men by about five to six years. By age 85 there are roughly six women to every four men. It is important that women prepare for this eventuality, but lower wages make that harder than it needs to be.

Today women went on strike all over the globe. On articles about a school system in Virginia that shut down completely because so many teachers requested the day off, I saw comments from women (and men) that were the verbal equivalent to being spat upon. Why should women "strike," when they supposedly have everything, these commenters said.

Because they don't have everything. Statistics everywhere back that up. Women who think they have equality are sadly mistaken and have been misled into believing that because they are not suffering hardship, others do not, either. But I assure you, that is not the case. In my work as a news reporter, I saw plenty of women who were mistreated, underrated, underappreciated, and unloved. I sat in the trailers of single women who had lost their husbands who had nowhere to turn, and I held the hands of other women who cried because they'd just lost their jobs at the sewing factory in New Castle and had no clue what they would do next (that was back in the mid-1990s; we don't have textile factories here anymore). Life isn't pretty, and it can be downright ugly even for the most beautiful female.

And while I'm speaking of ugly, I will leave you with these ugly facts from the CDC (which stands to lose funding under the new Republican Administration, by the way) to ponder (hit the first link for the .pdf if this is hard to read):

One last thing: if you're a guy, would you want to be a woman? Think about that, and if the answer is no - then think about why not. List those. That list of "why nots" are the things that need to change.

Thursday Thirteen - Virginia Suffrage

Buoyed by the film I watched on PBS and the upcoming celebrations this weekend that honor women's suffrage (obtaining the right to vote), I thought it only fitting that my Thursday Thirteen this week speak to this issue. This is a particularly frightening time as politicians continue to take steps to erode this most precious right.

Here are some Virginia women who fought for the right to vote and a little information about how it went in this state:

1. Anna Whitehead Bodeker, who came to Virginia from New Jersey, in 1870 organized the Virginia State Woman Suffrage Association in Richmond. She tried to vote in 1871 but was rebuked.

2. Orra Gray Langhorne of Lynchburg in the 1890s attempted to organize another suffrage league, but it was unsuccessful.

3. In 1909, a group of Virginia women joined together to form the Equal Suffrage League. The leader of those women was Lila Meade Valentine, an activist and reformer in Richmond.

4. Valentine was joined by Mary Johnston, a writer from Botetourt County, VA (where I live). Johnston authored To Have and To Hold, the #1 bestseller of 1900, and 36 other books.

5. Ellen Glasgow, a Richmond writer, also joined this group. Her many novels were social tales, created to illustrate the plight of southern women.

6. Kate Langley Bosher, another writer of social books, also joined. 

7. Adele Clark, an artist and dean of women at the College of William and Mary, served as an officer in the group.

8. Nora Houston, an international artist, also joined.

9. Kate Waller Barrett, a physician, author, and social reformer, was the other leader of the movement.

10. "Virginia suffragists employed a variety of techniques to enlist women to their cause, making speeches across the state (often from decorated automobiles), renting booths at fairs, and distributing "Votes for Women" buttons. By canvassing house to house, distributing leaflets, and speaking in public, the members of the league sought to educate Virginia's citizens and legislators and to win their support for woman suffrage. Beginning in 1914, the group published its own monthly newspaper, the Virginia Suffrage News. (Lily Meade) Valentine persuaded a group of Richmond businessmen to form the Men's Equal Suffrage League of Virginia. The state archivist Hamilton J. Eckenrode was among those who signed a resolution in support of woman suffrage in 1912, arguing that the state constitution should be amended "so as to enable Virginia Women to vote on equal terms with Virginia men." Eight years later, his successor as state archivist, Morgan P. Robinson, registered women to vote in Richmond. (Mary) Johnston visited women's colleges to rally faculty and students to the cause. Soon local leagues sprang up across the state." - Encyclopedia Virginia

11. "Virginia's suffragists argued that women were intelligent, sensible, tax-paying citizens, and therefore deserved to cast ballots. The home and the world in the early years of the twentieth century were overlapping, not separate, spheres, and women had special concerns and interests that were being poorly addressed by male legislators. Virginia suffragists staunchly maintained that women, in order to be good mothers, needed to be good citizens. "Home is not contained within the four walls of an individual home," suffragists argued; instead, "home is the community." When antisuffragists argued that men were the commonwealth's natural-born leaders, intellectually and physically superior to their female helpmates, suffragists countered that women could add valuable insight and energy to solving a number of problems largely ignored by politicians, including education, health reform, and child labor. The woman suffrage movement worked toward equal rights for women as citizens, as well as the right to vote. It was perhaps more important that the movement was building change on the foundation of a new, self-developed, economically independent womanhood." - Encyclopedia Virginia

12. Mary Johnston, through her suffragist efforts, became the first woman to address the House of Delegates in Virginia. As a suffragist, Johnston led the way for quiet rebellion. Though she has been described as shy and retiring, she ventured upon the Virginia House floor to beseech the gentlemen of the state congress to give women the right to vote. In 1912 she spoke before a conference of governors of all the states in the union, requesting the right to vote for women.

13. Virginia suffragists succeeded in bringing the issue to the floor of the General Assembly three times between 1912 and 1916, but the vote never came close to passage. - Encyclopedia Virginia


Women in Virginia obtained the right to vote when the rest of the women in the nation did: 1920. The Virginia General Assembly DID NOT RATIFY THE 19th AMENDMENT (which gave women the right to vote in 1920) UNTIL 1952 (just 61 years ago).



Thursday Thirteen is played by lots of people; there is a list here. I've been playing for a while and this is my 283rd time to do a list of 13 on a Thursday.

Watching "Makers"

Last night I watched a documentary on PBS called Makers: Women Who Make America. You can watch it online here and I heartily recommend it.

This is particularly true if you believe in women's rights, as I do, and think that women are people, too. It is good to be reminded that it had only been 40 years since things were really, really bad for women.

The documentary outlined the women's movement, from the inception of NOW to radical feminists (they are not one and the same), to what the film called "the conservative push-back" and resulting decimation of the women's movement and the stalling of the female climb to her rights as a person.

While the women you might expect were in the documentary - Friedan, Steinem, Clinton - the thing was loaded with women you may not have heard of. It was empowering to hear these stories, from the first woman to run in the Boston Marathon to the Southern Bell switchboard clerk who took the phone company all the way to the Supreme Court.

I really admire women who can stand up for what they know is right, who can see that laws and attitudes in place are wrong. They made a powerful stand against injustice and inequality and fought not just for themselves but their daughters and granddaughters. They fought for me!

The patriarchy and the glass ceiling have always been very real to me, and I have experienced harassment in many forms, both in the workplace and outside of it. Some of it - most of it - has been simply because I am a woman. In the early 1980s Oprah Winfrey was told she didn't deserve the same pay as a man - because she was a woman. That was just 30 years ago for her - but I heard the same line only 10 years ago!

It is easy to be harassed because you're a little different - a woman in a man's workplace. It's easy to become the target when you're a little more ambitious or a little more conscious of what is going on (it doesn't take much to be different). As a woman, I have been harassed for having an opinion, (because women aren't supposed to have them), for having different ideas (because women aren't supposed to have those, either), and for wanting to do things that were not considered "womanly" (like the time I worked in a machine shop). It certainly makes you feel like you are less than human when you are treated as such.

I have hoped for the last several years that we are on the cusp of a new women's movement. Eventually there will be one too many transvaginal ultrasounds legislated, and things will erupt, I think. Or maybe I am just foolishly hoping that legislated rape with a probe will eventually outrage enough women that it takes them to the street. Perhaps it will have to go a little further, to the point of The Handmaid's Tale, before complacency is no longer a viable alternative to what is happening.

Homemaking certainly is a valid career or life path. But I am opposed to having that forced on every woman, and that is where certain political paths and ideas lead. It was the lack of choice and the lack of opportunity that drove the women's movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I certainly don't want to go back to that era. I like to work and I like being able to own property and have credit in my name. These things have only been allotted to women in the last 40 years. Just 40! No wonder it remains tenuous and slippery.

So I applaud these trailblazing women who have broken the glass ceiling, who have changed laws, who have taken their lives and made them their own, and not remained trapped in a life someone else molded for them. Thank you to the filmmakers for this marvelous film.

More on the War on Women

Here are a couple of pieces about current legislation and the strange and disturbing conversations taking place in the media with regard to women:

http://confessions-of-a-thinking-woman.blogspot.com/2012/02/grievances-against-gop-from-former.html?showComment=1329749882826#c514318211943895953

The above link takes you to an excellent argument as to why current activities around the nature are just morally wrong, particularly as they pertain to women.


http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion_will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason.html

This explains the issues in Virginia with regard to the requirement forcing ultrasound upon women who are seeking abortions.

http://www.newsleader.com/article/20120219/OPINION01/202190314/Virginia-abortion-bills-denigrate-all-women


An op-ed about the Virginia issues of ultrasound and personhood.