waiver giving you rights to distribute it with one caveat. It should have the caveat "There are no fetuses here. This is not the womb you're looking for. Move along." Thank you John, for being the man I was sure you'd be, and thanks to the anonymous doctor for reinforcing what anybody who takes the Hippocratic Oath should already know in his or her bones. An unwanted procedure IS rape. I would like to thank both Dr. Anonymous for his/her call to action, and John for allowing his blog to be a safe platform. This proposed legislation is morally reprehensible. The government has no business requiring rape. Ever. Before I write I would like to say I applaud the doctor and his/her stance. My statement is trying to clarify the argument at hand. It seems to me that while the transvaginal ultrasound phrase is what people seem to be keying in on, that this is an argument all about patient consent. If this law wasn't in place the women in question were still seeking a procedure that would require vaginal insertion of a medical device. But the Doctor's objection was to being told, by someone with an agenda that included considerations other than the patients health and wishes, that they had to do A for/to the patient before they could do B. From a purely legal standpoint I would say this would be equivalent to telling people that they had to get a blood transfusion before broken bones could be