Garry Trudeau insults rape victims

 

Doonesbury comics will call vaginal sonogram abortion law ‘rape’

DailyMail: Political satirist flaming liberal Garry Trudeau calls a Texas law requiring a vaginal sonogram before a woman can have an abortion rape in a new storyline of his Doonsbury comic that comes out this week.  The comic this coming week follows a woman in Texas as she goes through the hurtles the state put in place for women who want to abort a their pregnancy.

Already the strip is generating a row and some newspapers have opted not to publish the comic strip this week. Others are pulling the Doonsbury from the newspaper and posting it online.

The law, which was passed by a Republican-majority Texas legislature and signed into law by Gov Rick Perry last spring, requires woman who wants an abortion to have a sonogram that will pick up the heartbeat of her fetus.  Abortion doctors say that in early-state pregnancies, that almost always requires them to penetrate a woman’s vagina with a 10-inch sonogram wand.

Trudeau told the Washington Post, that requirement amounts to rape.

‘The World Health Organization defines rape as “physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration — even if slight — of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object.” You tell me the difference,’ he said. 

In the comic, a nurse tells the woman at the clinic: ‘Sorry miss, you’re first trimester. The male Republicans who run Texas require that all abortion seekers be examined with a 10″ shaming wand.’  A doctor, about to perform the procedure then says: ‘By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape.’

I’ll tell you the difference you ignorant liberal – a rape is forced violence, usually involving intimidation, to denigrate and physically and emotionally harm a woman.  A vaginal sonogram is a medical procedure administered by a professional who is dedicated to protecting the well-being of humans.

A new low for this man….while pushing his liberal agenda he insults rape victims.  Disgusting.

DCG

20 responses to “Garry Trudeau insults rape victims

  1. Thanks for an informative description of the procedure…
    I just hope TSA doesn’t get any bright ideas on
    how to protect us some more (THAT would be rape !)

    Trudeau has always been a feminist advocate …and hard-core
    feminists believe that all heterosexual intercourse is rape…
    of course he doesn’t understand that he ,therefore, is a rapist.

  2. I subscribe to this site because I appreciate some of the articles. For example, the one today about wearing a cross at work is most welcome, and the news it reports is shocking and extremely important for others to hear about.

    I think I am about as pro-life as a person can be. This position often alienates me from others of various moral stripes, including sometimes others who also consider themselves pro-life, but consider me to be too extreme.

    I generally am thankful for these kind of efforts by states to discourage abortion.

    And I am appalled by much of Gary Trudeau’s work over the years. I agree that quite a lot of it has no place in a family newspaper. (I’m speaking from memory, since I very rarely read his work today.)

    But I have to take issue with something in this post. Rape is not exactly as you have defined it. Rape involves the issue of consent. Anything that is done without consent is, by definition, coercion. And the matter of intimidation applies here as well, since there is the implication of punishment by the state if the individual does not comply.

    None of this is an excuse for wanting, seeking, or performing an abortion. Abortion is murder, and seeking one is an act of attempted murder. Abortion is also infanticide, because the human being residing in its mother’s belly is an infant.

    But the fact that someone is doing so does not justify raping them.

    Thus I find myself in the rather uncomfortable, but necessary, position of defending Trudeau’s position on this one issue. The law, in all cases where the abortion seeker does not want the internal procedure, does indeed attempt to mandate rape. Let us not be hypocrites. If for no other reason, then simply because: who is it going to convince?

    Thank you for considering my point of view.

    RTF

    • My point comes from the side of knowing a woman that has been raped in a violent manner. Look at it from someone who was held a knife point and sexually raped. Take into account what they experienced and tell me if they feel it compares to going to a doctor office for a sonogram. Most likely they won’t see it that way.

      Course you may want to ask Whoopie Goldberg about this. In the case of Roman Polanski, it wasn’t “rape rape” so I wonder what she’d think this was “rape rape”?

      This sonogram requirement can be defined as coercion….just as many other things the local, state, and federal governments require us to do – whether it be physical, mental, or financial.

      As a woman, I’ve never understood a right to choose. We were born with the capacity and blessing to give birth. It is our responsibility, when carrying a child, to do everything possible to protect them. And I believe once a woman becomes pregnant, she is no longer an “individual”. She is carrying another person that, IMO, has rights too.

      • Richard T. Fowler

        Good points. I agree with everything you wrote in this last comment. Thank you.

        I think this is a very difficult issue to discuss publicly, because it touches on the common-law concept of duress which is highly relevant to many other political issues transpiring right now, and also because of the state of virtual legal battle between U.S. and states on this issue.

        The concept of duress that I refer to is basically in regard to the question of at what point a signed contract is to be considered not “legally signed” based on the fact that the signor didn’t “really want” to agree, but “did so anyway” because of an overt or implied threat. Some say that there is no gray area, that any agreement with any implicit or explicit intimidation is not a binding agreement; while others say there is a little bit of leeway, but generally do not carefully define what that leeway is.

        RTF

  3. And left/liberals are complaining about Rush Limbaugh…

  4. “Abortion doctors say that in early-state pregnancies, that almost always requires them to penetrate a woman’s vagina with a 10-inch sonogram wand. Trudeau told the Washington Post, that requirement amounts to rape.”

    By Trudeau’s definition, getting a pap smear is also rape because the gynecologist inserts a metal speculum into the woman’s vagina, which spreads the vagina open and allows access to the cervix to collect a sample of cells from the outer opening or os of the cervix.

    Gary Trudeau is a POS

    • Richard T. Fowler

      Please remember that Trudeau’s position also implies “without consent” which, as my subsequent discussion with DCG shows, is not as clear-cut as you are suggesting. You have the issue of legal duress and the question in legal theory of whether that issue has a gray area, or is black-and-white. (I think it’s black-and-white, but many others look at that and say, “Oh no! We can’t express agreement with that because then all these other legal issues are affected by it, which we don’t want to have to grapple with.”)

      It is also difficult to discuss publicly, because it is tied up with the issue of states’ rights which as I’m sure you are aware, has been a continuing source of actual and threatened violence over the years. How does one have a rational discussion about an issue in which the feds are blatantly trying to coerce the states to suborn murder, and many of the states are pushing back with legal tactics that are designed to establish a distinct position from the feds in the hope of saving whatever life they can … and so, as a result you have two different legal systems with differing views of the lawfulness of the invasive sonogram, based on what legal angle they view it from. And then you have the question of whether it is smart strategy to mandate something that is virtually assured not to convince anyone. I can certainly accept a noninvasive procedure mandate, and many other legal tactics to save life. I can even argue for the lawfulness of mandating this procedure as a way to save life, which is always legitimate grounds for ad-hoc exceptions to be made in law. But I think that with this there is a risk of being seen as hypocrites, and I think that anyone who could be convinced not to go through with it would be someone who would have been willing to consent anyway to the procedure without a mandate. Maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know.

      To look at it another way, a mandate under state law is legitimate if and only if the federal “mandate” to allow abortion is illegitimate — which it is. But given that that is the case, to be logically and morally consistent. the states that agree with this interpretation should openly defy the federal “requirements” and essentially say, “Let’s settle this like men, but we’re going to settle it here and now. Win or lose, there will be no more delay.” But of course, they don’t want to do that, so they resort to these kinds of measures instead. All I am really saying is that by doing that, they are in effect trying to mandate something that could be seen as a form of rape based on the federal viewpoint of the situation. For this not to be the case, the state would have to ban all abortion … and yes, they do have the power and authority to do that. All they lack is the will. And by failing in that regard, they effectively make themselves accessories to the abortionist’s actions, regardless of what their intentions might be. So like I said, a difficult situation all around, and a very difficult one to discuss publicly in honest terms.

      RTF

      • Yes there are many, many legal issues and interpretations associated with mandating this procedure.

        The main point of my post was that I found it offensive to compare this procedure to rape, legal terms aside. Again, if you know a woman that has been raped at knife point, equating this medical procedure to the event she went through would be insulting IMO.

        • Richard T. Fowler

          My late mother experienced this a few years before I was born, and I could see how it affected her the rest of her life. So I can understand what you are getting at.

          RTF

    • Man, I despise those devices…You’d think with today’s technology someone could invent something less painful!

  5. I’m an absolute Conservative on most issue, but I have to agree with the bad guy on this one.

    I was in the service suffering from stomach flue and they wanted to ‘force’ me to an rectal swab test. I told them “no” and when they insisted and said they would go get someone to ‘help’ them I stated, “What are you going to do? Rape me?!?!”

    Needless to say the exam didn’t happen and I went back to duty, still sick. However, my pride and dignity was intact.

    With that said, I have to agree with Trudeau on this one.

  6. I am still confused about why this sonogram is considered “rape”. I have read both of the men’s comments above that agree with Trudeau on this issue, and I understand both men’s stance.

    What I do not understand is the fact that these sonograms have been a requirement for pregnant women long before they were a requirement for women seeking an abortion. Any woman that goes through a pregnancy in today’s world will be and have been required to have this early sonogram. Where were the rape screamers then? Oh wait, I get it….it’s only rape now that It is a requirement for women seeking abortions. I would think that the “Pro-Choice” activist would be applauding Texas’s decision. Isnt that what “Pro-Choice” is all about….”ALL” women having EQUAL rights? (Obviously Not!)

    Like Sage always says, “Good is considered Bad and Bad is considered Good”. Is this not a perfect example of that very thing? These women are making the biggest decision of their lives, the decision to kill or not kill an innocent, helpless baby. And we, as a nation, are going to help them do this w/o even 1 requirment in place? And our argument will be as flimsy as….the requirement might cause the woman discomfort? Will this also be the argument taken before The LORD when judgement day comes? How I pray that this One Nation, under God, can crawl out of this mucky, muddy mess before it is too late!

    My question to the Liberals and Conservatives who defend Trudeau’s stance on this being a form of “Rape” is this:

    (a) Which one’s, the Mother’s or the Baby’s, rights are being the most infringed upon?
    (b) Which one is in the more urgent, life-or-death situation?
    An innocent child or the child’s own mother, the person that God has blessed with the responsibility to protect her child, no matter the cost, even if that cost is her own life?

    • Richard T. Fowler

      Miranda,

      You make a good point about the requirement on pregnant women. I was not aware that this type of sonogram was now mandatory on pregnant women. If so, then you are of course right.

      That having been said, I would like to point out that if you read all of my comments above, it should be clear that I was thoroughly convinced by DCG, and I did retract my previous statement of disagreement. That having been said, DCG also clarified her position somewhat before I did that. So I think we kind of found a common position to agree on.

      Thanks for your interest in my thoughts on that matter.

      RTF

      • Richard T. Fowler

        I cross-posted with Sage just now. I would like to add that I now consider Trudeau’s efforts not particularly commendable (if at all). Rather, they seem somewhat malicious to me.

        RTF

      • Yes, a common position! I like it when that happens :)

    • I’ve had the internal sonogram. It’s nothing, and I mean nothing, compared to the yearly mammograms or speculums that are much more invasive and “painful”, IMO.

      Concur with your last statement – don’t see it, pretend it doesn’t exist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s