Really? " . . . or is it still a violation of womens' rights?" Not even a pretense of journalistic objectivity?

The one change being offered doesn't change how egregious the GOP's actions toward women are--including this bill. The Richmond Times Dispatch today in their business e-mail has a piece about Virginia increasing it's efforts to attract business--well, Virginia isn't going to attract business as long as it has a war on women. That war has now been hugely noticed by the national media. Thanks, GOP for denigrating our state

Requiring any medical procedure that is against the will if the patient, is violation of patient and in this case, women's rights. Shame on Virginia.

For two steps forward, Virginia has taken 4 steps backwards. The GOO has shown what hypocrites they are. Just like in Florida, they preach jobs and the economy, yet their main goal is social engendering. They complain about Obamacare and the gov't coming between the Dr and Patiant but we see with the needless and costly ultrasound test, they force the Dr to perform a test that is not needed. They are the hypocrites of the highest order. Shame on the clowns in Richmond. The only reason Bobby McDonald pulled back on his support was due to sheer political reasons. Thank goodness he can only serve 1 term. He's a disaster has a governor . He is no Warner or Kaine. Even Maryland has created more jobs than McDonald. He's nothing more than a puppet to big business and whacky extremist right-wing special interests

Supporters of this bill tell us that ultrasounds are standard practice before an abortion, so why do we need this unnecessary legislation? Com'on Richmond, get back to business - jobs, education, transportation.

Both the Governor and the Delegate who originally proposed this bill find TSA patdowns unnecessarily invasive and a misuse of Government power. However, an invasive, mandatory ultrasound sounds fine to them? Sheer hypocracy. The only reason the Governor is backing away from this requirement is the bad publicity, which will hurt his political aspirations.

Who is going to pay for this proceedure? In many women that are obese, or < 10 weeks along, a traditional ultrasound will be unable to provide a clear picture. So the proceedure will be a complete waste of money.

Vote them out. Vote them out. Vote them out. Vote them out. Vote them out

This issue exposes the practice on Republicans who hide their partisan-social conservative votes from their constituents. For example a woman Delegate like Barbara Comstock votes for the ultra-sound bill but does not include that vote in he report to her constituents, It appears when she gets to Richmond she becomes a good ole boy. She needs to be held responsible for a voting record that does not reflect the interests of Nohrtern Virginians,

This is just shocking that ANY state would try to mandate such a procedure. But I am even more disturbed that its MY state!! The state has no business telling women they must have an ultrasound of any kind!

Sometimes while draining the swamp, Conservatives do tend to get a bit overzealous and need to heed towards a course correction from time to time.

However, it’s still better than having to deal with a bunch of Ultra Liberals and New Castrati’s who seldom heed common sense will all self righteously march lockstep way over to the Far Left – and over the edge.

What stumps me is why the very people so opposed to mandates of any kind are so anxious to mandate all sorts of things against women. The people who consider any government help to be intruding on their private lives and so quick to intrude on the most intimate parts of people's lives. And by the way, Joe, name calling.... not necessary.

I was a Republican for most of my adult life until the party turned to social conservatives to rebuild its constituency. The party now primarily represents only the very wealthy and the evangelical right. While claiming to champion individual freedoms the party is quick to deny them when these freedoms conflict with their reactionary agenda. "When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" (Sinclair Lewis).

One more attempt by the government to tell women what to do concerning their bodies. I thought Republicans were for less government. When will men ( and misguided women) ever get it? A woman' s body is her own. All decisions for what to do about a woman's body rests with the individual woman.

Ridiculous! Vote them out!!!

For just a moment I would like to step away from the subject matter of this legislation and the issues surrounding it in order to ask a question. Does it bother anyone else that, at least on the surface (and that is all that we get to see), our top elected officals and legislators were ultimately more influenced by Saturday Night Live than by their peers, lobbyists or voters? What changed in the last few days? Were new voices heard in this session? Were more eloquent pleas made on the floor to effect an outcome? Nope. Out-of-state comedians weighed in. They should absolutely have that kind of influence in Richmond. Wonderful . . .

I agree with above...VOTE THEM OUT!! Republicans are always complaining about the Government being too much in our lives. Let women have control of their bodies!
Sue

Has anyone seen today’s story in the Washington Examiner on this subject?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2012/02/va-senate-committee-approves-changes-abortion-ultrasound-bill/304441

It shows Pro-Abortionist Margaret Doyle protesting against a procedure she’ll likely never need.

When I learned that this had passed in the House, I was for the first time in my life, embarassed to say I live in Virginia. I am an Independent, but I cannot vote for anyone who would take away rights from my three daughters. What is they were raped? Can you imagine having to have an transvaginal ultrasound? I had to have one before for a pregnancy and it is awful. I cannot imagine forcing women and young girls to do this. How can a Republican say they are against too much government when they are making legislation on your body? I have been leaning on voting republican in the next election for other reasons... now I just can't see doing that---even with requiring an ultrasound at all. Do you know how frightening that would be to a young girl?

This is so outrageous. Maybe they should mandate that men about to have sex first look through a microscope to see their semen and determine if they still want to "risk" sex! My apologies for the crudeness but the bill rather forces it....

For women's sake.... Not the women in the womb -- for that is what over half of them are, who are "terminated." Reminds me of the comment from the 19th Century's moral issue: "Everyone who supported slavery was free. Everyone who supports abortion, was born." Nuff said.

Old tired response, what about those who are already born? it is the pro-life community that cares for, places them and helps mothers who don't want to kill their babies in the womb. I don't like the sound of an intrusive test either, but the pro-aborts don't want any restrictions, no ultra sound, no parental notification, no informing on girls impregnated by adult males -- statutory rape it is called. Not to mention sucking the brains out of babies in the act of being born. No, we can't control that. And our president, when he was in the IL Senate, voted against a bill that would protect late term babies who survived abortions from being killed by abortion doctors!! Even liberal senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan called partial birth abortion infanticide.

Don't stand on a high horse on this one. Abortion is the killing of a unique human life. And a decent government would protect the most innocent of life, life in the womb.

Carol - I wasn't name calling, just stating a fact. And facts are stubborn things. Your ether pro-abortion or your anti-abortion. Saying it's pro-choice is a cowardly way of sugarcoating something that some call murder.

and the Governor Bob McDonnell was the one who opposed TSA patdowns at airports as a civil liberty issue. How are they going to implement this ultrasound law? Will they bring a policeman to make a woman to sign a certification that she availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat? What if she refuses to sign such a certificate? Will she be send to jail?

Ah, the ultimate male put-down. Editorial note to Joe: the correct spelling is "you're so pretty..." not "your". I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it. Now I will take J Anderson's advice and stop responding to you.

Dave, I respectfully disagree. I believe that most Republicans who disapprove of abortion do so for religious reasons. However, it is illegal and immoral for our representatives to insert their personal religious views into state politics.

The issue can be summed up as, either it is a human life or it is not. If one says that the product of conception is not a human life, then, what is it? It is a women's issue, including an issue for those women who are dismembered inside the place that should be the safest in the world, their own mother's womb. This is human rights at its basic level. When Nazis practiced eugenics, they were condemned. Aren't we doing the same thing?

An issue that hasn't gotten much attention is the provision in the bill that the unltrasound image must be put in the woman's medical record and left there for at least SEVEN YEARS. What's up with that?

I think Dave P speaks too simplistically. Pro life people seem to assume all embryos are equal and they are not. Statistically 1 in 9 embryos fail to make it through to a live birth. 1 in 9. Not all abortions (even those dreaded late term abortions) are because the woman does not want the baby. In 99% of the late term ones, it is because something went dreadfully wrong, and the situation is heartbreaking. Wish the pro lifers would respect the right to privacy and stay out of these traumatic situations. Go sit in on an MIS (miscarriage, infant death, and stillbirths) meeting and broaden your awareness of the need for options that include abortion.

Like may hard topics, the "what if" debate can go on and on without end and the Pro-Abortionists can all the heartstrings they like. However, the vast majority of abortions are done simply because the mother isn't ready to be a mother and the child was simply conceived at an inconvenient time.

Well Kim, I believe it's a child, not a choice so Pro-Abortionist is not a proper term. So I guess we agree to disagree.

To daniellakha: You wrote: "...and please don't throw the rape and incest line at me - the majority of abortions are performed on women who simply made a bad choice to engage in sexual activity and their birth control either failed or they used none." While you may be right about the majority of abortions, there are still those women who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest. Would you require a woman to bear her rapist's child? A young woman, barely grown, to bear a relative's child? As for the "majority" of abortions, the reasons aren't so simple as you state. Family finances, health of the mother, age of the mother... etc. The decisions are painful and each woman must decide for herself and her family what is best. And why is it that men are left out of the discussion entirely? Don't they have some obligation to wear protection? Women don't get pregnant on their own. Better sex education, which many (not all!) in the anti-choice movement, protest except for abstinence.

I never said abortion didn't leave scars, but I think that women outside the womb are human beings too. I disagree with your definition of when life begins and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I think it is cruel to force a woman to bear her rapist's child. We might agree that better education on birth control is necessary, of both MEN and women.

Thank you Danielle, for your defense of the defenseless. I would only add, to the never ending pablum about sex ed, that decades ago, when to get a condom you had to ask the pharmacist and sex ed was substantially a class on biology, the illegitimacy rate was a fraction of what it is today. The constant refrain is that we need more sex ed, but with more sex ed comes more babies born out of wedlock and of course, many many more abortions, not to mention STDs. Who actually believes that 16, 17 year olds or younger, don't know about the "birds and the bees?" We did, ages ago before it was blatant prime time "sex ed" on the TV. Clearly there are lots of cultural issues we are dealing with here, like glorifying Hollywood women having children and not marrying the fathers, etc. etc. But to suggest that the cure all is sex ed, well, that has been a failure.

I totally agree Dave. I think Sex Ed is a joke and a crock. As a parent, I sincerely do not want ANYONE else educating my children about sexual morals other than myself and my husband. I don't mind a science class on human biology that includes the reproductive system but I draw the line there. I think the rise of birth control and wanton sexuality without consequences is the real problem. Regardless, there will always be people who don't follow the rules and don't like the consequences but it makes me so sad to see people disregarding life in such a careless manner. Abortion should never be back-up birth control. Ever. And frankly, if people could realize how hugely important sex is and that is was not meant for pure pleasure alone perhaps the gravity of the act and its consequences would matter more to people. The damage I have seen done to young women in the pursuit of "love" but being used as nothing more than lifesize sex toys is so very sad. They debase themselves and the act when they forget they are worth so much more. And young men need a serious re-education about the value of a woman and the preciousness of her body. And they don't get that when they are told they are really no better than monkeys and are handed condoms and a pat on the head by people who think they aren't capable of restraint or respect....