HB462 Is Not Going Away…

Babies: Offensive To Democrats, a Hate Crime, and A Threat To Civilization

Bearing Drift feels so strongly about this common sense sonogram bill — we’re holding some feet to the fire.

Tired of “conservative” Republicans promising common sense legislation only to gun them down on the floor once the liberals start whining and complaining about “dragging us back to the 1950’s” and other nonsense?

Of course, we were told things would change with a Republican-led Senate.

Are they lying to us?

HB 462 would allow a woman to see a sonogram of her baby before she was pushed into the decision of having an abortion — or keeping her child.

Bearing Drift and our 40,000 readers a month consist of the movers and shakers, activists, and donors for the conservative movement in Virginia.  

They want to know.  What’s changed with the Virginia Senate?

HB 462 is our first true test.  No exucses, no compromise.  And we’ll be watching.

[Ed. Note: SB 484, a duplicate bill to HB 462, passed the Senate and is now being debated on the House floor – with likely passage considering HB 462 easily passed. So, the below chart is updated based on the votes taken in the Senate on Senator Jill Vogel’s SB 484]

 Senator  SB484 (Sonogram Bill)  Bearing Drift Rating
 Barker Nay 0%
 Black Yea 100%
 Blevins Yea 100%
 Carrico Yea 100%
 Colgan Yea 100%
 Deeds Nay 0%
 Ebbin Nay 0%
 Edwards Nay 0%
 Favola Nay 0%
 Garrett Yea 100%
 Hanger Yea 100%
 Herring Nay 0%
 Howell Nay 0%
 Locke Nay 0%
 Lucas Did Not Vote
 Marsden Nay 0%
 Marsh Nay 0%
 Martin Yea 100%
 McDougle Yea 100%
 McEachin Nay 0%
 McWaters Yea 100%
 Miller, J. Nay 0%
 Miller, Y. Nay 0%
 Newman Yea 100%
 Norment Yea 100%
 Northam Nay 0%
 Obenshain Yea 100%
 Petersen Nay 0%
 Puckett Yea 100%
 Puller Nay 0%
 Reeves Yea 100%
 Ruff Yea 100%
 Saslaw Nay 0%
 Smith Yea 100%
 Stanley Yea 100%
 Stotsch Yea 100%
 Stuart Yea 100%
 Holtzman-Vogel Yea 100%
 Wagner Yea 100%
 Watkins Nay 0%

Bearing Drift will continue to add more legislation from its 2012 Agenda and other bills as they move through both chambers, so a House of Delegates version of this will be forthcoming.


However… the problem isn’t in the House… this list will be updated.

  • MD Russ


    If I am the only one who finds this objectionable, then I will shut up. But attempting to intimidate the Virginia Senate is more than a little creepy to me. This violates the principle of representative democracy whereby we select men and women of sound judgement and experience by majority vote and send them to Richmond to make laws. They listen to the debate, weigh the pros and cons, and then vote on bills. If we are going to do it this way, why not just get rid of the GA and put every new law up for a public referendum like they do in California? Talk about chaos.

  • Brian Kirwin

    MD, by your logic, legislators shouldn’t have phones or email addresses. They shouldn’t accept calls from constituents or emails about issues.

    That’s downright silly.

  • publius
  • MD Russ


    Communicating with a constituent and being billboarded on a state-wide publication are two entirely different things. It is like the case of a victim of sexual assault who is a minor. You can go down to the courthouse and get the victim’s name. But that doesn’t make it ethical to publish it in the media. What BD is doing here, IMHO, is deliberately attempting to force senators to bow to the tyranny of fleeting public opinion rather than to vote their conscience. And that is much worse than downright silly.

  • So, votes should no longer be made public record, MD? Let’s do away with the Virginia Legislative Website? Get rid of private sites like Richomond Sunlight and VPAP? No accountability should be made for our representatives?

    This is just step one. It’s not only this particular bill we’re concerned about. There are a myriad of ideas that have been presented in the General Assembly that pertain to our legislative agenda.

  • What’s “creepy” is the ridiculous legislation itself. What is “conservative” about a forced and medically unnecessary procedure. You who think yourself conservative in supporting this legislation are so far off base I don’t know where to start.

  • duh

    Completely agree with Lloyd…there is nothing “conservative” about this bill. At the end of the day we all know its an another way to attempt to stop abortions, which is fine, but lets not pretend its something other than that.

    In fact, would a supporter of this bill please explain how its conservative and in line with small/limited government? Please, just one of you?? Oh, and while you’re at it, go ahead and explain why its medically necessary to get an ultrasound prior to an abortion.

    This is what happens when republicans got control of the senate, they will inevitably shoot themselves in the foot with crap legislation like this and will be voted out of office. What all the Republican “conservatives” dont get is that as the population shifts to the urban areas, which is already happening, you will be forced to either 1) become tolerant of more moderate republicans (the only republicans that can actually win in urban areas), or 2) be content living in the minority. Bills like this make me think republicans need to go back to being in the minority until they grow up and deal with real issues (ie our crumbling roads) and not bills that force unnecessary medical procedures on people (just like a big government liberal).

    Ok, I feel better now.

  • Lloyd – Conservatives believe that there is a role for government in protecting the natural rights of human beings. One would presume that would apply to those in a life stage where they are most vulnerable. You just proved why “too conservative” is completely not and is irrelevant now to the political discussion.

    And, “duh” – give me at least a reasonable pseudonym and I’ll take time to respond to your questions.

  • kelley in virginia

    i talked with a young, very intelligent, hip & Republican woman today. her question to me: why are all these old white men trying to tell me what I can & cannot do with my body.

    she continued to ask me why these old white men weren’t concerned with DC traffic or the VRS funding problem or fraudulent voter registration.

    this young lady is white & Republican. wonder how independent minority women will view Del Marshall et al?

  • kelley in virginia

    JR Hoeft: glad you weighed in. My comment is to remind those that this sonogram bill & some of the other social conservative bills will create perception problems with some of the younger electorate.

  • William Goose

    Well, they would not think the same of our 2nd amen rights. Few will notice and then this will be law. I want to see who votes against. They will not have a good reason. We are watching, but few else care for now. Those who vote against are the worst kind of legislator and destined for hell.

  • “Destined for Hell”

    wack job.

  • Well, JR, let’s see:

    Capital punishment
    “Castle” doctrine
    Military action

    All those can and do result in death, yet I, and most Republicans, support them.

    Furthermore, I oppose
    state mandated health coverage
    state-imposed health care

    You put those two together, and, logically, you must be pro-choice.

    Who’s the real conservative?

  • Jumping Jack

    Yeah, let’s not have Bearing Drift hold them accountable and pretend the left doesn’t do it either with Daily Kos or Moveon.org. Let’s just duck our heads in the sand.

  • MD Russ


    I have to agree. “Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war…”

    I’m searching my New Testament for the passage where Jesus condemned abortion. Also, I’m looking for the requirement for Virginia Senators to give preference to religious beliefs over the secular law of the land. If I find either one, I will post it here.

    Since this comment is doubtlessly going to start a flaming war with the Bible thumpers, let me fire the first shot:

    Matthew 26:24: “The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born.”

  • Susan G

    You do what you have to, Bearing Boys, but I think you would make your point better if you were down on the Capitol steps handing out long white plastic tubes with packets of KY jelly demanding that Assemblymen cast their votes for this bill with a thrust from the tube. Can’t you see it, all those white men pulling out their white plastic things and emphatically voting for vaginal penetration. Do you think you could get something like that cheap online?

  • William Goose

    I have a couple of nephews that would like to meet these women. With these concerns, they will be prepared, like the boy scouts, and have condems, you will need them with this group of girls. We got a loose lot running round here and sounds like they like toys.

  • Shaun and J.R. and BD in general. Oh, My Lord. This thread is beyond bad. First, this place calls itself “Virginia’s Conservative Voice.” Then it endorses Mitt Romney. Then it acts like the Taliban an abortion issue. Really, talk about schizophrenic.

  • louexis

    First of all I am a Democrat and I am pro-choice and anti abortion. This whole issue about sonograms points out the main under lying issue within the Republican party. “Who is a Republican? Is he the hard right Libertarian who wants the government to do the littlest possible or is it those who believe in religious tyranny governed by the bibles doctrine. Are these zealots any different than the Taliban? Do they want to rule in the same manor except they use different words. The Taliban would stone a woman to death for having been raped and our Zealots would put a woman’s life in jeopardy to enforce their ideas on how society should be governed. Is their really any difference between to 2?

  • We tell people what they can and can’t do with their bodies all day long. What food is okay, what isn’t. What drugs are okay, what isn’t. Have to wear a seat belt, no texting, can’t sell your organs, can’t sell sex, can’t smoke inside, can’t hit people – all law is about telling you what you can and can’t do with your body.

    That argument is stupid.

    There is nothing “Taliban” about this issue. No one is banning abortion. No one is saying “kill the mother” if she has an abortion. The state isn’t telling her she’s going to hell if she does. It’s unfortunate that the Democrats, who apparently have no idea what the Taliban actually is, want to try and paint those who disagree with them as being evil. But that’s their tried and true tactic.

    The Republican party has a broad range of stances on the abortion issue, from the far right libertarians to plenty of folks who are pro-choice. Some of my fellow contributors think this is a fundamental issue.

    From a small government perspective, there are three things that the government absolutely must do in order to call itself a government: protect life, liberty and property, in that order. Life is paramount. Liberty is next most important, and property follows. For small government conservatives, the argument is clear – this legislation is about protecting life.

    And, frankly, it has less of an impact on someone’s freedom of choice than a complete ban on abortion would. Granted, that’s not possible under the Constitution, but this bill doesn’t restrict anyone’s rights. The same people who seem to think that forcing people to buy health insurance is okay are all of the sudden up in arms about requiring ultrasounds for abortions. I don’t get it.

    Yes, this is heavy handed, but don’t we want the state to be heavy handed when it comes to protecting life? Isn’t that why we have such strict laws on the books banning the taking of it? Murder is one of the only crimes left that warrants the death penalty anymore, and most Democrats want that to go away. So why is it somehow hypocritical for Republicans to go this far to protect life?

    Nobody in this debate can claim the moral high road. Both sides end up running afoul of their other core beliefs when the abortion issue comes up, so I think it’s a little disingenuous for the Democrats to act like they’re not playing the same game of intellectual pretzel making the right is playing on this issue.

  • louexis

    Brian: The sonogram bill is not to protect life it is to protect the potential for life. The bill suggesting that male masturbation also destroys a potential life carries the argument to a ridiculous extreme. You say the bill has nothing to with banning abortion. Get real!!! If a bill passed tomorrow over turning Roe VS Wade you would be dancing in the streets for weeks celebrating.

  • I doubt it. Unlike some of my colleagues, I don’t labor under the belief that passing a law is somehow going to end abortion. It is still going to exist whether it’s legal or not. That’s why we need to be doing a better job at deterring it and ensuring that there are no unwanted pregnancies if we truly want to end abortion.

    I know you guys have a carefully crafted belief that life only begins when it’s convenient for you to say it begins, but that doesn’t make it correct.

  • Kinda amazing how many (liberal) guys are pushing for abortion…

    Wonder why that is?

  • BearManPig

    Embroidered with the wildly popular REVOLUTION logo, my superior cotton knit BLACK cap with cuff that allows me to proudly display to all my support for Ron Paul was sad to say MADE IN CHINA.

  • This legislation is not being proposed by “Old White Men”. State Sen. Jill Vogel and Del. Kathy Byron are the chief patrons for the senate and house bills, which are identical.

    And, last I checked, I’m only 37, Shaun is 33, and most of the BD crew is in their 20-40 range. Hardly old.

    Lastly, I don’t think this bill solves the abortion issue. I’m not sure it will be preventative in the first trimester (although external ultrasounds late in the first trimester I think should be mandatory). I think that fixing the moral issues related to abortion is better approached through other means, including: education, economics, law enforcement, and justice.

  • Shaun, (liberal) guys?

    I would’ve put the parentheses around the other word.

  • louexis

    Since you want the sonogram to be mandatory who is going to pay for it? 1) the patient 2) Planned Parenthood, 3) the State?
    What the Personhood law says is that the State owns the body of a woman from the moment of conception and maybe earlier with the the doctrine desiring to ban contraception. I don’t how you slice it but to me that sounds like Shirra Taliban law. A fanatic is a fanatic is a fanatic!!!!!!!!!!

  • That’s not what it says, and if you think that’s Taliban Sharia law, you’re displaying your ignorance of what that actually is.

  • Louexis, you are incorrect. It wouldn’t say “the State owns the body of a woman” any more than prostitution laws, or drug laws or any of the myriad of laws that mandate things in health care.

    But a nice attempt at drama.

    I love how liberals suddenly care about “who pays” when it comes to sonograms. Watching them pass a budget shows a significant lack of care for “who pays” for the things they want.

    Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if all the cheerleaders for the sacrament of abortion had a mother who felt the same way?

  • Sara

    BearManPig February 19, 2012 05:59 am


  • “Kinda amazing how many (liberal) guys are pushing for abortion… Wonder why that is?”

    Although I consider myself a true conservative (that is, believing the government should not interfere with the most personal of decisions including those at the beginning and end of life), and I do not “push” for abortion, I support a woman’s right to choose because I have daughters and sisters whom I hope are never in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy, but if they are, I don’t want it any worse than it needs to be.

  • Lloyd thinks anything unwanted should be killed.

  • Lawyers are unwanted, but I don’t want them all killed.

    Not all of them.

  • kelley in virginia

    JR: my “old” comment was directed to Del. Bob Marshall who I think is older than his 40s. no insult to our BD youngsters.

  • bill goose

    The liberal guys supporting abortion are the players who don’t use condums.

    The ad for lonley Russian women on here was cute. Are they a Bearing Drift Sposor?

  • Scott


    Those are google ads that are generated based on your google history I believe. Not based on BD sponsors.

  • William Goose

    Thanks Scott. I see why this may be as I may have googled up some nice pics of Eastern European girls recently. I proudly admit it.

  • LittleDavid

    Why was the vaginal penetration requirement included? I know some women with moderate views on abortion who would not have objected to an external sonogram requirement, but who describe the vaginal penetration necessary as being the equivalent of rape.

    I know that when I first saw my still unborn kids on a sonogram, it was from a paddle put on my wife’s belly, not from anything inserted in her vagina.

  • LittleDavid

    I’m just wondering why the personhood bill passed by the House isn’t being publicized and why Bearing Drift is not going to hold Senators accountable for that one?

    That bill is an attempt to outlaw contraception entirely. The Democrats proposed an amendment that would have made it clear that contraception would not be outlawed, but it was voted down.

    I am going to examine how Bob Tata voted. He has always had my vote in the past, but if he is voting to outlaw birth control, that is going to be too much.

    See what happens when you put Republicans in charge? Even though most of them use birth control, they’ll vote to outlaw it.

  • Darrell — Chesapeake

    “The Republican party has a broad range of stances”

    I’ve noticed this about Republicans in Virginia. They get in power and BAM! I’m curious why here in the land of Jefferson that all the GOP broad range of stances usually involve the citizens bending over? Is it a long held feeling of inadequacy because the Dems controlled the keys? Remember what happened the last time the party got too big for it’s britches?

  • @ Little David

    You are incorrect, HB 1 will not outlaw contraception. Once given teeth it would outlaw the morning after pill which is not truly contraception but rather an abortifacient.

    Meanwhile, Personhood is a part of Bearing Drift’s legislative agenda and Shaun wrote about it not long ago. So I am not sure where you are coming from there. Yes the pressure is on the Senate right now and they need to pass this bill.

  • Darrell — Chesapeake

    So how would this bill outlaw morning after? Is a woman going to get thrown in jail because a part time bouncer/cop found something in her purse?

  • The fundamental lack of understanding and a lack of intellectual curiosity to learn more is amazing…whether that is legislative process or the process of ultrasound. It’s no wonder Democrats can so easily manipulate those who naturally gravitate to vote for them. They can throw how horrific sounding bullet points and their base won’t question it at all or endeavor to find out more. FYI – I’ve explained the sonogram issue ad nauseum this weekend in another thread.

  • @Darrell–Chesepeake

    Only when given teeth would the bill do anything. And the morning after pill destroys a conceived being so yes the morning after pill would violate the principle of protecting life from the moment of conception.

    It is simplistic and naive to suggest that HB 1 will result in women getting arrested. If the morning after pill were ever outlawed, there would be no manufacture or sale of the product.

    As Jim said above, whether it is the ultrasound bill or HB 1, the social liberals have used demagoguery and innuendo to distract from the real substance of the debate. This is because they are losing the argument.

  • Darrell — Chesapeake

    “If the morning after pill were ever outlawed, there would be no manufacture or sale of the product.”

    Really? What about tourists from NY? Or a trip to NC? Are you willing to destroy a large portion of the tourist trade, or to send ladies to NC for what Virginia deems illegal abortion?

  • JayD

    JR and Shaun do not represent the views of the majority of Americans, the majority of Virginians, or the majority of Virginians that vote Republican. I’ll be adding my voice to the the 25,000+ that have already signed the petition opposing HB1 here:

    And signing the petition to oppose HB1 and HB462 here:

    “Pushed into the decision …”??? What a total crock Shaun. Another example of religious zealotry; another post exemplifying alternative realities extremists (yes, even Catholic extremists) can create to justify vile and loathsome words and actions.

  • Brian Kirwin

    Killing for convenience.

    Is that the nation we want to be?

  • Nathan Miller

    According to reports, Republican legislators are coming to their senses and it looks like this bill is going to die in committee.

    HB 1 is trending towards the same fate. Good news for VA.

  • “Is that the nation we want to be?” I would love for pro choice dems to do a tour of china where abortions are performed commonly on girls soon after birth.. Its birth control, right?

  • JayD

    Yet again Kirwin’s pitiable attempt at clever rebuttal demonstrates a complete lack of intellectual juice to understand complex issues. But hey, he’s the resident shock-jock and more isn’t expected from his corner.

    I do respect deeply held and personal religious beliefs and even diverse political ideology. But is it too much to ask that folks leading fights to criminalize abortion & birth control learn the facts and use correct terminology? Or, as JR more aptly puts it: quit “throw(ing) out horrific sounding bullet points that the base won’t question at all or endeavor to find out more … in order to easily manipulate those who naturally gravitate to vote for them”. This is what’s so wrong – and destructive – w/ political discourse in this country.

    @Steven Osborne. You are mistaken – twice.
    #1 HB1 (as currently written) defines life as beginning at “conception” – a vague time period that can either mean fertilization OR implantation. State legislators would have to determine SPECIFICALLY which cell mass gets constitutional protection – a zygote or a blastocyst – and THAT battle, my friend, would be a hoot to watch!

    Do your research guys – the ‘morning after pill’ does NOT abort an established pregnancy; it PREVENTS a pregnancy from happening. Comprised of same hormones (progestin) found in oral contraceptives and ONLY licensed for use (and effective) for up to 120 hours after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure, the hormone mix prevents pregnancy by:
    a) keeping the ovaries from releasing eggs,
    b) thickening cervical mucus [thicker mucus blocks sperm and prevents fertilization],
    c) thinning the uterus lining to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to uterus.
    The ‘abortion pill’ OTOH, refers to RU486 and other similar drugs that do terminate an actual pregnancy. Unlike the ‘morning after’ pill, pharmaceutical abortificants provide alternatives to surgical abortions (and used to terminate most ectopic pregnancies). RU486 chokes off progesterone which is necessary to sustain a pregnancy. Without progesterone the cervix softens, the uterus lining breaks down, and bleeding begins.

    #2 Now that you understand the difference between the two, is it not completely evident that you can’t outlaw the ‘morning after pill’ unless you also outlaw oral contraception? And you can’t outlaw an FDA approved ‘abortion pill’ until surgical abortions become criminal acts?

    @Nathan. Thanks for the update and of course these bills will die. Kiss of death to Governor McD if he’s actually forced to sign or veto… bad news either way w/ horrific political consequences. No presidential candidate would ever choose a running mate w/ this albatross on his neck and no seasoned politician would ever let himself get boxed in this way.

  • Del. Joseph Yost posted this excellent explanation for his votes in favor of HB1 and HB462 on his Facebook page:

    Thank you to everyone for contacting me about your opposition to House Bill 1, the personhood bill, and House Bill 462, the bill requiring ultrasounds for abortions. Let me address your concerns on HB 1 and 462. Interest groups, both pro-life and pro-choice have pumped out so much rhetoric on these, that it is impossible for anyone to understand these bills unless they go to the Legislative website and read the bills directly. So, let’s walk through the bills.

    HB 1

    In summary, all HB1 does is to allow a Mother to sue someone who kills her fetus / unborn child. Here are the details:

    A copy of HB 1 can be found by visiting the following site:
    If passed, this bill would give a woman the ability to sue someone who killed her unborn child / fetus. Since current law does not recognize a fetus / unborn child as a person, a woman cannot sue for the death of something that does not exist. I find it shocking that if a pregnant woman gets hit by a drunk driver and is not personally harmed, but still loses her baby because of the collision, she could not sue the drunk driver.

    HB 1 attempts to fix this by first making a fetus/unborn child a “person.” If the fetus/unborn child is a “person” then the Mother can sue for loss of that person.

    In 2010, a similar version of this bill could have created a ban to birth control and even assisted contraception (eg. “in vitro-fertilization”), a bill which I would not have supported. Since 2010 however, the bill has undergone a massive re-write. These problems were addressed, and you can plainly see in the bill the many exceptions to ensure that HB 1 has no effect on abortion, birth control, or assisted contraception.

    These exceptions include the following:

    “subject only to the Constitution of the United States and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this Commonwealth.”

    This section is key. It says that HB 1 cannot conflict with Supreme Court rulings. Thus, it excludes any effect that would put it in conflict with Roe v. Wade, which gives women a constitutional right to an abortion prior to viability (in the first two trimesters), and Griswold v. Connecticut, which gave women the constitutional right to access to birth control. (Note: In Griswold, Connecticut had a law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. The US Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional as a woman has a constitutional right to privacy.)

    “Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.”

    This was put in here to make sure that the law would not allow a suit for a woman who did not act as she should during pregnancy, and as a result brought harm to her baby.

    “Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful assisted conception.”

    This ensures that the bill does not bar people from trying to build a family through in vitro fertilization.

    So, here is the bottom line. Current law does not allow a woman to sue a drunk driver who does not injure her, but instead, kills her fetus/unborn child. This is because the fetus/unborn child is not recognized as a “person” under the current law. And since the fetus/unborn child is not a “person” the fetus/unborn child does not exist under current law. A person cannot state a claim for losing something that does not exist. IF HB 1 is passed and becomes law, all this bill would do is to allow a woman to sue a person who either intentionally or by negligence killed her fetus/unborn child.

    HB 462

    In summary, all HB 462 does is adds an ultrasound to the existing law which requires women to be given certain information prior to the abortion. Here are the details:

    HB 462 concerns the Informed Consent law regarding abortion. This bill adds to the existing Informed Consent law the requirement that an ultrasound be performed and the woman be given the opportunity to see it.

    Again, instead of reading biased articles about what this law does, let’s just look at the law. You can link to it here:

    First, go down to Subsection D. This is the definition of “Informed Consent”. In summary, existing law says that 24 hours before an abortion, the woman must be informed of certain things before she consents to an abortion. Among this information is:
    … a statement of probable gestational age of the fetus…
    … a “full, reasonable and comprehensible medical explanation of the nature, benefits and risks of and alternatives to the proposed procedures or protocols to be followed…”
    … printed materials that describe the unborn child and list agencies that offer alternatives to abortion…
    … medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care…
    … the father of the unborn child is liable to assist in the support of her child, even in instances where he has offered to pay for the abortion, that assistance in the collection of such support is available…
    … the right to review the materials printed by the Department and that copies will be provided to her free of charge if she chooses to review them…
    HB 462 adds to this list a requirement that “…fetal ultrasound imaging shall be performed prior to the abortion to confirm the gestational age…” and that the doctor shall perform a fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant and “… offer the woman an opportunity to view and receive a printed copy of the ultrasound image and hear auscultation of fetal hear tone…”

    There has been some concern over what “ultrasound” means. Testimony during this bill confirmed that normal medical protocol is to give an external “jelly on the belly” ultrasound and if the gestational age of the fetus/unborn child cannot be determined, then do an internal ultrasound. According to testimony, doctors need to do this anyway prior to an abortion to determine the age and position of the fetus/unborn child. So, this bill does not add any requirement that would not normally be done on a woman prior to an abortion. In fact, The National Abortion Federation’s Clinical Guidelines recommend the use of ultrasound prior to an abortion to, “… enhance the accuracy and reliability of ultrasound findings in this setting, thus improving the quality of care.”[1]
    In addition to concerns about the definition of “ultrasound”, some have alleged that this bill would require an ultrasound for a miscarriage. The current version of the Informed Consent law has been in the Virginia Code for a decade. Not one single time has a doctor made a woman who has miscarried comply with this law. It is ludicrous to imply that a doctor would offer “…alternatives to abortion…” or discuss, “… medical assistance benefits … for prenatal care.”

    In summary, IF HB 462 becomes law, all it will do is add an ultrasound to our existing Informed Consent law.

    During the campaign, I made certain statements on big issues so that people know what they are getting when they elect me. On abortion, I clearly campaigned as being pro-life. While we may have to agree to disagree on HB 1 and HB 462, I believe my vote for these bills lives up to the promises I made on the campaign and to my constituents.

    Thank you again for contacting me. If you have any further questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me at deljyost@house.virginia.gov or (804) 698-1012 .
    [1] http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/professional_education/2012_CPGs.pdf

  • Nevermind that Planned Parenthood already “rapes” women through ultrasound:



    Guess they forgot to include that little detail in their abortion business. How lucrative.

  • JayD

    Sorry, but with respect to Del. Yost, this innocuity doesn’t really pass the ‘smell test’.

    If purpose of HB1 was to allow suit for loss of unborn fetus or child, why select ‘conception’? Fetal period begins 9 weeks AFTER conception and nature already ‘aborts’ at extremely high rates during the germinal and the embryonic periods. You want us to believe that a house full of lawyers wouldn’t be aware the compensatory rate of such a loss (during early post-conception stages) would be valued at near zip. And if you can’t win significant monetary damages, how the hell do you get a trial lawyer to take the case?

    IN ADDITION, SENATE BILL NO. 674 already proposes to amend action for wrongful death to include fetal death and it does so clearly and specifically.

    Yost:“HB 462 … does not add any requirement that would not normally be done on a woman prior to an abortion. In fact, The National Abortion Federation’s Clinical Guidelines recommend the use of ultrasound prior to an abortion to…”

    Please, name one other medical procedure where safe and acceptable standards are ALREADY in place, guidelines followed … yet the state feels compelled to act and codify. Or are all medical procedures currently outlined in Virginia statute and I’m just uninformed?

    What really happened w/in the last 24 hours, I suspect, is these guys took a stupid pill and then got their cajones handed to them on a platter. Can we spell b-a-c-k-p-e-d-d-l-e?

    @Shaun, don’t be a dunce. You know there is a HUGE difference between ‘allowing’ and ‘compelling’ and undergoing a physician recommended procedure isn’t the same as state-compelled. And you might want to read the case file (on your link). Abofreka was obviously a quack and suspended for much more than underestimating gestational age. LifeNews is (surprise!) cherry picking facts –just enough to inflame.

    @ Turbo – say again? “… tour China where abortions are performed commonly on girls soon after birth”. Huh??!

  • Lifelong Republican

    Let me start by saying that I probably agree with most of this groups opinions, including being anti-abortion. And I have always been a conservative republican. But when I heard the gov’t of VA was going to mandate a procedure like this I thought are you kidding me? Is someone trying to sell more ultrasound machines? Then I found out it was real and I couldn’t believe it. How stupid. How overreaching. How damaging to the GOP in a very critical election year. I agree with the objective of reducing the number of abortions but it should not come at the cost of undermining our freedom and our right to be left alone by government. This is just like mandating the purchase of health insurance. STUPID!! We need to kick Obama out of the WH and we can’t do it with national coverage of some hair brained idea like this. Forget about it!

  • “HB462 Is Not Going Away…”

    Yeah, it is. Bwaahhaahhaahhah!


  • Hey Shaun how about putting a red R or blue D after the names of the reps so out of state folks can see clearer..

    Thanks in advance.

  • Pingback: ???()

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.