In an 11-paragraph piece in Tuesday's print edition of the Washington Post, staff writer Rachel Weiner did Democrat John Foust a favor, promoting his new campaign ad savaging Republican opponent Barbara Comstock. Foust and Comstock are competing to win the approval of voters in Virginia's 10th Congressional District.
The online version of the story also includes a YouTube embed of the campaign ad in question.
While Weiner did include space for rebuttal from the Comstock camp, the language of her story was generally loaded (emphasis mine):
A controversial antiabortion measure that roiled Virginia and the nation two years ago has reemerged as an attack in a competitive congressional race in the Washington suburbs.
A new ad from John W. Foust, the Democratic nominee for the open seat being vacated by U.S. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R) , paints his Republican opponent as an extremist who supported a bill in the state legislature that would have required an invasive procedure known as a transvaginal ultrasounds for some women seeking abortions.
“Barbara Comstock wants to make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, just like the right-wing Republicans in Congress,” says the narrator, a well-dressed middle-aged woman sitting in a darkened home. “They want to overturn Roe v. Wade — so does she. . . . Barbara Comstock even voted with right-wing Republicans to require women seeking an abortion to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds. That’s all I need to know.”
Reproductive rights could become a key flash point in the race for Virginia’s 10th Congressional District, a diverse region stretching from the wealthy and well-educated D.C. suburbs to more rural enclaves in the Shenandoah Valley. Foust’s campaign hopes voters in this swing district, particularly women, will be turned off by Comstock’s conservative record on abortion.
The implication is that the charge could do heavy damage to Comstock because there's no way that a "diverse... wealthy and well-educated" electorate could countenance voting for an "antiabortion" "extremist."
Of course the ultrasound requirement was not an "antiabortion" measure per se but rather a matter of regulating abortion, something well within the state's constitutional prerogatives.
What's more, as NewsBusters alumna Alana Goodman reported at the time of the controversy, Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in the Old Dominion already perform pre-abortion ultrasounds. Here's an excerpt from Goodman's February 21, 2012 piece for Commentary magazine (emphasis mine):
The Virginia League for Planned Parenthood didn’t immediately return calls yesterday. But here’s what it said on the recording for its abortion services information hotline:
"Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.
"Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound."
From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying.
In other words, the real reason pro-choicers oppose the law isn’t because of the “invasiveness” or “creepiness” of ultrasounds. It can’t be it. Virginia Planned Parenthood clinics already include them in its abortion procedures.
Suffice it to say, nowhere in Weiner's article did the Post reporter note any of the information which Ms. Goodman documented at the height of the ultrasound controversy.
