Letter: Taking Exception On Women’s Health

Letter: Taking Exception On Women’s Health

To the Editor,

I read with great interest the January 3-9, 2013 edition of the Connection, because of the interviews with our various local leaders, with regards to their predictions for the “hot topics in 2013.”

As a woman, I would like to let Representative Gerald Connolly know that he should fear not, because I do believe that the Virginia General Assembly has done a fine job in protecting me and all of the other women in our state.

As a woman, I am more than capable of speaking for

myself with regards to my health and thankfully do not need my representative to speak on my behalf.

Anyone who truly cared about women's health would stop saying that women's access to health care has been restricted. That is simply not true. Neither is it true to refer to an ultrasound exam as “invasive.”

Of course Mr. Connolly has never been pregnant, but I venture to guess has he ever witnessed an ultrasound, because if he had, he would know that it is not invasive in the least. I offer as a point of education the definition of the word “invasive,” in regards to matters of health, as given by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “tending to spread; especially: tending to invade healthy tissue” or “involving entry into the living body (as by incision or by insertion of an instrument).”

What is invasive is what goes on in these “health clinics.” Women are not there for their annual pap smears and breast exams. This is another lie being told. No, the invasive procedure being done is the killing of babies within their mother's womb. It is the ripping and shredding of their little bodies. This is the most invasive procedure in the world.

It takes an innocent human life. One can hardly compare an ultrasound to an abortion. What goes on in these clinics has very little to do with health and well being, for neither the woman nor her unborn child.

As far as “restricting health clinics,” one would hardly say that requiring clinics to widen their doorways so that a gurney could easily pass through is restricting. If these clinics actually cared about women's health, they would not hesitate to comply with bringing themselves in line with other healthcare facilities in the state. Many of us are aware of the reality that these clinics are all about making money and that is the bottom line.

The most ludicrous and offensive part of Mr. Connolly's opinion is that he believes that these were “anti-women laws” and that my rights as a Virginian woman were degraded, and not protected. No, Mr. Connolly, it is men like you who invoke “women's health,” and assault my intelligence

and my religious liberty, who I find to be the biggest threat towards the true betterment of women in Virginia.

P Jones