Extended Essay #2

Claudia Locke

WRIT 1122

Extended Essay #2

The Virginia Ultrasound Bill

The Virginia state congress has a new bill regarding abortion procedures. The “Ultrasound Bill” would require women seeking an abortion to first have an ultrasound. The bill was drafted under a Republican majority congress and if passed, Virginia will be the eighth state to require an ultrasound before an abortion. The addition into the bill of allowing women to make “informed consent” has made way for anti-abortion and pro-life groups to enter the picture. There is dispute what the Virginia Senate Health and Education Committee’s intentions were when drafting the bill.  The newsphere is trying to unwrap the story to see if the congressmen’s true interest is to convince the woman to forego the procedure after seeing the fetus’s image. The only constant that runs through news articles is the contradictory information that is being presented in each one. One source claims that a transvaginal ultrasound does not help to protect the safety of the woman before an abortion, and another source refutes that statement. Even after reading multiple articles from viable news sources, it is difficult to understand what is and is not necessary in an abortion procedure. The majority of articles on the Internet are in opposition to this legislation. The newsphere covers a lot of politicians’ opinions but not a lot of information about the specifics of the law and what current abortion procedures are. The newsphere also aligns this controversial story with upcoming political elections.

The New York Times covered the ultrasound bill issue on February 20. The purpose of the article “Ultrasound Abortion Bill Nears Vote in Virginia” is to inform the reader about the upcoming legislative vote regarding a change to abortion procedures. The NY Times is slightly left of other non-partisan news sources, meaning that the audience is pro-choice and anti-government interference in private matters. The NY Times usually does a good job with providing both sides of the story, but failed to do so in this article. The article focuses on the politics behind the bill and the opposition to the bill, but does not provide supporters opinions, save for the writings about the “anti-abortion” supporters. Reporters Sabrina Tavernise and Erik Eckholm from the New York Times write,

“Anti-abortion groups say that it is a tool for “informed consent,” and that they hope some women will be deterred when they see or hear about the physical traits of the developing fetus”.

 While the new legislation might coincide with the will of anti-abortion groups, the NY Times article does not illustrate other justifications for this bill, primarily being the safety of women during the abortion procedure. Vaginal ultrasounds are often performed by doctors before abortions in the first trimester anyway, but opponents say that “the legal act of requiring it for nonmedical reasons is a violation of the doctor-patient relationship”. Delegate Charniele L. Herring, a Democrat who opposes the bill, said “the requirement that the probe be inserted vaginally was tantamount to ‘state-sponsored rape’”. The only new information that the NY Times provides are their critics’ outrage of the cost of the ultrasound being borne by the woman in the prospective bill. The NY Times also inserts a quote from Tarina Keene, executive direction of Naral Pro-Choice Virginia, regarding forced bodily intrusion in order to further their argument and communicate to the liberal readers that there are pro-choice activists working against the bill in Virginia. The New York Times uses harsh diction and excludes other possible benefits of the bill in their report. 

            The Washington Post also covers the “Ultrasound Bill”, and does a much better job at presenting all sides of the story. The purpose of the article “Virginia ultrasound bill joins other states’ measures” is to engage the readers in a controversial issue and encourage them to find out more. The Washington Post article inspires the readers to physically engage in the issue by including a summary of the protests in Virginia that are in opposition to the bill. The Washington Post news article covers all of the information that the NY Times does, but brings up an important point that was avoided in the previous article. Washington Post writer Lena H. Sun writes,

“Providers need to know how far the pregnancy has progressed to ensure that an abortion is taking place within a state’s legal time frame, that medically appropriate methods are being used, and to rule out ectopic pregnancies”.

This simple explanation introduces an entire new component to the bill, implying that it has nothing to do with women’s rights, but rather the safety of women. The Washington Post suggests that the bill’s purpose is aimed at doctors, and ensure that they submit themselves to the same regulations of other health clinics in America.

Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” covered the ultrasound bill debate, with a high dose of satire and mockery. The purpose of this particular news clip was to convince the audience that the Republican congressmen who are in charge of the ultrasound bill are incompetent and inconsistent with their values. “The Daily Show” is to the left on the NY, and it was shown in this clip through Stewart’s aggressive demeanor and ironical statements pointed at Republican state lawmaker Kathy J. Byron, who introduced the bill. Stewart showed footage of Bryon from January 2011, in which she attacked state efforts to mandate the HPV vaccine, saying that “The substitution of our judgment for the judgment of parents is exactly the type of government intrusion into healthcare that America rejected at the polls last November”. Stewart’s satire reaches the younger, liberal audience because he adds a dose of comedy and excitement into the news stories that directly relate to their lives. “Saturday Night Live” reports on the news in their “World News with Seth Meyers” bit, and creates a similar viewpoint in their sketch “Really?!? With Seth and Amy”. The writers and audience also have a liberal bias, so the actors Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler ridiculed the Virginian measures to change abortion procedures. Poehler declares, “The Virginia House of Representatives this week passed a bill that required women to have a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion. Really? Now don’t get me wrong. I love transvaginal. It’s my favorite airline. I have so many miles on Transvaginal that they upgrade me to ladybusiness”.  Meyers goes on the mock the news story, going as far as saying “But Virginia wasn’t done. They also passed a bill saying that life begins at conception. What’s next? Life begins at last call? Life begins when you click ‘send’ on your match.com profile. I mean, really!’” The story got many laughs but “dumbed- down” the real issue that is being debated. “The Daily Show” and “Saturday Night Live” both focus on poking fun at the legislative changes, rather than discussing them in depth and presenting the audience with viable information. They focus on the act of passing the bill, rather than the motivations of Congress behind it, such as the pro-life argument or safety precautions. This type of “news source”, however absurd is may seem, still reaches out to a significant number of people and informs the audience of upcoming legislative changes.

            The National Review online article “Abortion Advocates Wage a Misinformation Campaign over Virginia Ultrasound Legislation” was by far the most knowledgeable source that focused only on abortion procedure facts, rather than debating the pro-life aspect of the bill. Just like the Washington Post, this article explains how the bill would increase the safety measures taken by the doctor before the procedure. The authors, Daniel McConchie and Mailee R. Smith counter the ultrasound news stories that were presented by other mainstream news sources.  The authors state that :

“ABC News reporter Serena Marshall wrote in her story, ‘Many women receive abortion very early in their pregnancies, which would mean that, in some cases, a trans-vaginal ultrasound would be required.’ Ed Schultz on MSNBC stated that the bill would require women seeking abortions would require a highly invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound first.’”

McConchie and Smith counter these supposed “facts” presented by the mainstream news by uncovering values and exploring the bill as a safety regulation rather than pro-life movement. They counter by saying:

“Ultrasound assists an abortion provider in determining gestational age. The farther along in pregnancy that a woman is, the greater the risk that abortion poses. Ultrasound also serves an essential medical purpose by diagnosing ectopic pregnancies which, if left undiagnosed, can result in fallopian rupture and life-threatening bleeding. For example, the FDA has reported that at least two women have died from ruptured ectopic pregnancies following use of the abortion drug RU-486”.

The National Review Online article condones the use of scare-tactics by pro-abortion groups, and urges the readers to look at the use of false information and personal vendetta against the Virginian pro-life governor as a politically timed attack, rather than an opposition to the legislation based on its merits. The National Review Online article has the purpose of illustrating another side to the ultrasound bill that is undocumented and avoided by other media sources.

The newsphere also aligns this controversial story with upcoming political elections, which in my opinion deters the story away from women and instead, focuses on what a couple of old white congressmen will stand by through their campaigns. The headlines “Alabama Ultrasound Bill: Governor Robert Bentley Says He Just Learned About Legislation” (Huffington Post) and “Bachmann Introduces New Bill for Ultrasounds before Abortions” (Life News) create an environment where the personal opinions of the law makers interfere with and trump the basic changes the bill would make regarding procedures. There is much speculation about which congressmen support the bill and how it will affect their campaign, but this bill is important only because it affects a substantial group of citizens, and has the potential to inhibit the constitutional right to privacy given to all citizens if handled poorly. The newsphere successfully covered this legislature because it is one of such contention, however, the story changed from an ultrasounds debate to a pro-life debate. Unfortunately, abortion polarizes the sides in politics so much so that there is no middle ground for news sources to communicate on.  Personally, I understand both sides to the proposed legislation and feel that the most telling part of the bill will be how voters react to their congressmen in upcoming polls.

Works Cited

Celock, John. "Alabama Ultrasound Bill: Governor Robert Bentley Says He Just Learned About Legislation." Huffington Post. 26 Feb. 2012. Web.

Ertelt, Steven. "Bachmann Introduces Bill for Ultrasounds Before Abortions." LifeNews.com. 10             Oct. 2011. Web.

McConchie, Daniel, and Mailee R. Smith. "Abortion Advocates Wage a Misinformation   Campaign over Virginia Ultrasound Legislation." National Review Online. 23 Feb. 2012.      Web.

Sun, Lena H. "Virginia Ultrasound Bill Joins Other States’ Measures." The Washington Post. 26   Feb. 2012. Web.

Tabernise, Sabrina, and Erik Eckholm. "Ultrasound Bill Nears Vote in Virginia." The New York    Times. 20 Feb. 2012. Web.

Vozzella, Laura. "‘Daily Show’ Mocks Virginia’s Ultrasound Bill." The Washington Post Local , Virginia Politics. 22 Feb. 2012. Web.

Vozzella, Laura. "‘Saturday Night Live’ Mocks Virginia Anti-abortion Bills." The Washington      Post Local , Virginia Politics. 20 Feb. 2012. Web.