For me, I don't know whether to call this actual, physical rape so much as I would call it "rape of the soul."
That's a good description. I've been thinking of it as "rape-like." It isn't legally rape, but it is still crappy.
This law is simply bullshit. The entire purpose is to drive women away, and let's face it... it's based on Christian doctrine. Nobody wants to admit it because it's unconstitutional, but the entire reason they're doing this crap is because they think Jeezus wants them to.
I've been thinking about the constitutionality of this law for a few days, and I am really not sure how a court would rule. I suspect it would come down to whether the challenge was done as a prima facia challenge, or done as-applied.
Abortion (as part of the fundamental right to privacy) requires a strict scrutiny analysis. This means limiting access to abortion would require (1) a compelling governmental interest, and (2) the law be narrowly tailored to meet that compelling governmental interest.
If challenged prima facia, I fear the law would pass constitutional muster. Analysis would not get to strict scrutiny because (on the face), there is no restriction of the fundamental right. Virginia is not telling women they cannot have an abortion. The law only says a procedure must be done before the abortion can be carried out. Once the procedure is done, she can have the abortion. No restriction --> No constitutional issue.
If challenged as-applied, and the ones challenging the law can show that the law kept women from getting abortions, it would flunk constitutional muster. (Getting the evidence to show the laws effect would take time, but could be done.) The only possible compelling governmental interest (and it is a weak one) is health and safety. ("We're making sure women are healthy enough to have the abortion" or something like that...) Given how weak that argument is, I doubt any court would find there is a compelling governmental interest. Even if that was sufficient, it clearly flunks narrow tailoring, as it requires all women to undergo the procedure, regardless of the woman's overall health. (It is "over inclusive.")
It's also possible it could be challenged under the Fourth Amendment. ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...") Although a lot of that challenge comes down to whether it is legally a "search" and whether the doctor was acting as an agent of the state. And there is also the issue of consent (as consent makes a search automatically reasonable).
Neither is a vasectomy... do you think that argument will make people ok about being told they need one?
I have no idea, but apparently it isn't a big deal around here. There's several giant billboards for a surgeon who does scalpel-free vasectomies on a main road between here and Gainsville. A few years ago in DC, a surgeon was offering a special right before the Super Bowl - a lower price and a bag of frozen peas!
Legal technicalities hardly matter for such a fucked up situation. I'd still call it rape.
You can call it whatever you want. Legally, it does not rise to the level of the definition of rape in VA. That doesn't mean it isn't invasive or creepy.
Is the only difference in the landlord situation really that the woman didn't "do something" to get that treatment?
No. The primary difference is the effect of the choice. A woman is free to walk out of the medical facility and there is no consequence to her. (Please note that courts do not consider continuing pregnancy to be consequence.) If, by chance, there was a situation where there would be a dangerous consequence (i.e. she has a medical condition that would cause continued pregnancy to threaten her life), that could be a basis for an as-applied challenge. (See above.)
How about if the state made such a law, with its convenient higher threshold for what's considered coercion?
See my above discussion regarding constitutional challenges. Such a law would likely be seen as a conflict of the Fourth Amendment. It would clearly flunk compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring.
