Abortion Ultrasound Bill: Anti-Choice Activist Twists Facts On Hardball
Last night, Chris Matthews hosted a “Hardball” debate about Virginia’s new bill that would require a woman considering an abortion to have a transvaginal ultrasound. During the debate, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the ultra-conservative Susan B. Anthony List, twisted and turned various facts by suggesting that the majority of women support being legally required to have this highly-invasive and expensive procedure, and caught falsely claiming that women only had to have an ultrasound “offered” to her — when the Virginia law would force her to undergo the procedure.
But first, a quick note about who Susan B. Anthony was, via Wikipedia:
Susan Brownell Anthony (February 15, 1820 – March 13, 1906) was a prominent American civil rights leader who played a pivotal role in the 19th century women’s rights movement to introduce women’s suffrage into the United States. She was co-founder of the first Women’s Temperance Movement with Elizabeth Cady Stanton as President. She also co-founded the women’s rights journal, The Revolution. She traveled the United States and Europe, and averaged 75 to 100 speeches per year. She was one of the important advocates in leading the way for women’s rights to be acknowledged and instituted in the American government.
The Susan B. Anthony List, “dedicated to electing candidates and pursuing policies that will reduce and ultimately end abortion,” co-opted Susan B. Anthony’s name, with no clear indiction of what her views on abortion are. Disgusting.
Back to “Hardball.”
First, Dannenfelser was caught in falsifying facts by Matthews when she stated, “all that is involved here is saying that 24 hours ahead of time, that that ultrasound be available and offered to the woman,” according to the MSNBC-provided transcript, below.
Matthews interrupted her, as any quality journalist would have, to clarify that the law requires that ultrasound be performed, not be made available to her, as in, “Would you like a mint?”
Then Dannenfelser told Matthews that “the reason the majority of women in Virginia and across the country support this is that they believe in that vulnerable spot in a difficult place, that more information is better,” also according to the MSNBC-provided transcript, below.
Apparently, Dannenfelser has polling that no one else is privy to, because we have poll after poll after poll that states that a majority of women — and in some polls, men too — do not want the law to be involved in her decision to have an abortion, and certainly do not want the government foxing her to have a medically-unnecessary and invasive procedure, like a transvaginal ultrasound.
Dannenfelser also falsely claimed that having an ultrasound was “vital” for the health of the woman — certainly not true. Were it true, doctors would demand a the procedure and there would be no need for a law.
Even Matthews slams Dannenfelser, asking, “Why are you pushing a bill you don’t understand the ramifications of?”
Of course, Dannenfelser does not support the Obama administration’s mandate to have all employers offer contraception services free of charge. Because as the head of a women’s organization dedicated to eliminating abortions altogether, having contraception — which would reduce the number of abortions desired — is not acceptable. She’s against it.
It’s a woman’s right to choose — not the Republican Party’s right to tell.
Majorie, if you have to twist facts to make your point, you don’t have one. Shame on you. Lord knows Susan B. Anthony is rolling in her grave knowing you represent her good name.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
>;>;>; next door to here in virginia, nearly 1,200 protesters descended on the state capital to protest legislation working its way to the governor that would require a woman to get an ultrasound before having an abortion. legally requiring an ultrasound violates the doctor/patient relationship. the ultrasound is a tool for informed consent before having an abortion. virginia is now the focus of this fight and could join seven other states at least where women are already legally required to have an ultrasound before an abortion. texas, law there states the provider must describe the image. in virginia, the bill as written now would require the ultrasound be done, but not that the woman view it. coming on the heels on access to contraception, is the virginia fight another example of the placing undue burden on women’s care. margeny denifeld joins us. cynthia, you go first. what’s wrong with this legislation requiring an ultrasound before an abortion?
>;>; everything, chris. republicans have been bludgeoning the administration with government intrusiveness. the affordable care act is supposed to be so intrusive. what is more intrusive than man mandating a medical procedure for a woman? one that is not medically e necessary? what is more intrusive of government than getting in the relationship between a woman and her doctor? i can’t imagine an episode of greater government overreach than that.
>;>; margery, your thoughts about why it would be important for the legislature to require this ultrasound before an abortion?
>;>; this is a matter of giving a woman more information that she needs to make a decision that’s fully informed. listen. these ultrasounds are standard procedure. planned parenthood’s hotline in virginia says that as well. all that is involved here is saying that 24 hours ahead of time, that that ultrasound be available and offered to the woman.
>;>; i thought the law said they have to have it.
>;>; the information. you have to have the ultrasound, yes. it’s not true that there’s no medical value in it.
>;>; just so the person watching the show understands the issue here. is the issue whether this is required by law or not?
>;>; this is required by law.
>;>; if you win.
>;>; that is right. if we win. and the actual image is offered to the woman. she doesn’t have to look at it. it’s not true there’s no medical necessity. that’s why it’s a standard procedure.
>;>; what’s the medical advantage of having an ultrasound?
>;>; women have died and had all sorts of complications from abortions when the jes talgs age was not determined.
>;>; hang on a minute. if in fact planned parenthood already does this, why is the law necessary? if a doctor believes that the procedure is medically necessary, a doctor will do it.
>;>; because a woman deserves to see it.
>;>; but if it is not medically necessary, the government has no business telling a doctor he or she must perform this intrusive procedure when it’s not medically necessary.
>;>; the information is vital. there are other standard procedures required by government. this one is certainly vital for her health and her fully-informed decision.
>;>; i’m not going to take cynthia’s side, although i agree this should be a concern that people should have. there ought to be an ownous on the ones that want the law. a woman decides to have an abortion. she makes the decision. it’s legal. under the law in the first trimester. why should you get in the way of that decision once she’s made that decision? why should she be required to jump through hoops to do it?
>;>; the reason the majority of women in virginia and across the country support this is that they believe in that vulnerable spot in a difficult place, that more information is better. and making — one decision is a medical decision. one is about the contentious difficult decision about what’s happening in an abortion. an ultrasound speaks to that. it’s science. it’s a scientific opinion backing up a medical reality.
>;>; what percentage of women decide not to have an abortion after seeing an ultrasound?
>;>; why are you pushing the bill then?
>;>; i understand that women– i know that women think they should have that information. if they want the information, they should have it.
>;>; if women thought —
>;>; they are in a difficult spot. listen. they get all kinds of other information about every other aspect of everything that’s going to happen in a procedure. this is arguably another human being.
>;>; do you think abortion should be outlawed?
>;>; of course, i do. it’s another human being. but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
>;>; is this another way of beginning the process of outlawing it?
>;>; this truly is about giving a woman a fully-informed decision about what’s actually going on.
>;>; cynthia, last thought here. i want to move on to a larger question on women’s health. what do you think this means, cynthia? that this is being pushed.
>;>; it’s harassment. it’s harassment because the groups who are pushing this don’t want women to have the right to decide. it’s extremely condescending to suggest that women have not thought deeply about this. prayed about it, talked to family. if they wanted more information, they could certainly ask the doctor for it.
>;>; why should an abortionist in the first place do it? why should information that he’s going to get not be offered to the woman? that’s all that’s happening in virginia.
>;>; let me ask you a question. the insurance companies are required to carry without co-pay coverage for birth control. isn’t that going to radically reduce the number of abortions in this country? birth control? the fact that poor women, working women will get it free. they will be inclined to provide themselves with birth control and avoid abortions?
>;>; regardless of the answer to that question, the ends don’t justify the means. this is actually what this presidential debate, this is what this freedom of information is about. it’s about freedom. and for —
>;>; so radically reducing the number of abortions in this country is not a good end?
>;>; of course, it’s a good end.
>;>; it could be achieved by birth control.
>;>; but a mandate to require abortions?
>;>; the availability at no cost will encourage women to use it. it would seem to me because it’s free and made available in their insurance programs. won’t that radically reduce the number of abortions?
>;>; no. look. 100% access is what women have now. requiring — mandating that on individuals that don’t believe in abortion causing drugs is a restriction of religious liberty and should not be about it. that’s what we’re talking about. .
>;>; cynthia, thank you for your knowledge and passion as always.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
President Donald Trump’s top loyalists are angling to climb the political ladder to help secure the future for his ultra-MAGA movement—and position themselves for greater influence. House members like far-right U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) are looking at the U.S. Senate, and far-right U.S. senators like Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) reportedly see hope in governors’ mansions.
Some critical U.S. senators on both sides of the aisle are retiring, like Republican former Majority and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and the second-highest-ranking Democrat senator, Dick Durbin of Illinois.
“Democrats anxious to deny Donald Trump and his Republican Party a governing trifecta as soon as possible are feeling pretty good about their prospects for flipping the House in 2026, given the GOP’s fragile margin of control and the historical pattern of sizable midterm losses for the president’s party,” New York magazine’s “Intelligencer” reported last month.
“But the Senate, which has the power to confirm Trump’s executive branch and judicial nominations, is really going to be a reach. Democrats would need to flip four Senate seats to win control of the chamber. And an already difficult landscape is being made even tougher by the retirements of Democratic incumbents Gary Peters of Michigan, Tina Smith of Minnesota, and now Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. All three of these open seats could potentially trigger competitive races in 2026.”
READ MORE: ‘Reeks of Eugenics’: RFK Jr.’s Autism ‘Registry’ Draws Nazi Germany Comparisons
Enter Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who went from a freshman stripped of all of her committee assignments over incendiary language, to becoming chair of the Delivering on Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) subcommittee. She also sits on the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Congresswoman Greene is now thinking about becoming Senator Greene. If successful, her controversial tactics could have a dramatic impact on what is supposed to be the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”
Rep. Greene is reportedly eyeing a run to unseat Democratic U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff, and believes she would “crush” any GOP primary opponent—except Governor Brian Kemp, should he choose to enter the race—according to the right-wing website Daily Caller.
“Republicans are laser-focused on defeating Ossoff, whose narrow victory over former Republican Georgia Sen. David Perdue in a January 2021 runoff election was partly responsible for costing Senate Republicans their majority during the 2020 cycle,” Daily Caller notes, adding, “Ossoff is the only Senate Democrat running for reelection in a state that Trump won last November.”
Could Greene beat Ossoff?
READ MORE: Trump’s SignalGate Sit-Down Mocked as a ‘Him in a Nutshell’ Moment
“This would be a dream for Dems in Georgia,” should Greene run, observed veteran journalist Lydia Polgreen.
“Somewhere at the DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] some operative is frantically wondering if there is anything they can do to ensure this happens,” wrote University of Pennsylvania political and media historian Brian Rosenwald.
A Daily Caller source also suggested Ossoff would retain his Senate seat, especially should the election move into a runoff. And Ossoff “has been taunting Greene to jump into the race.”
Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville is reportedly mapping out a run for the Alabama Governor’s mansion.
“Tuberville told a group of donors at a private event on Wednesday night that his mind is officially made up,” the conservative website Yellowhammer News reported. “Rather than seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate, he is ready to run his next race in Alabama, and serve the people of the state in Montgomery instead of Washington.
An official campaign announcement is imminent in the coming weeks, but latest reports offer insight into a finalized decision by Tuberville, who has been privately discussing jumping into the 2026 gubernatorial race for quite some time.”
Senator Tuberville reportedly is “furious” at the leak, according to an opinion column at Alabama Political Reporter.
“Tuberville melted down like a plastic lawn chair in July. By Thursday morning, the whispers had turned into headlines. Then Tuberville took to Facebook — and things got weird.”
“While I appreciate all the interest,” Tuberville wrote, “Suzanne and I are still praying about how to best serve the people of Alabama. When I have an official announcement about my future, you’ll hear it directly from me.”
U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn, a top “Trump loyalist,” is “strongly looking” at a run for the Tennessee governor’s mansion.
The Tennessean reports that “early polling suggests she would likely be the Republican frontrunner. Some politicos across the state consider her success a foregone conclusion: at a Tennessee Chamber of Commerce event in January, attendees called her ‘Gov. Blackburn.'”
And U.S. Rep. Jim Comer (R-KY), the chair of the powerful House Oversight Committee, has also said he would be interested in running for governor.
READ MORE: ‘Incompetent. Irresponsible. Negligent’: Calls Mount for Hegseth’s Ouster or Prosecution
Image via Shutterstock
The Trump administration reportedly has plans to scrape your private medical data from sources like your doctor, your pharmacy, your insurance company, the lab that processes your bloodwork, your smartwatch, and your fitness apps—to create a “registry” of people with autism.
“The National Institutes of Health is amassing private medical records from a number of federal and commercial databases to give to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new effort to study autism,” CBS News reported. “The new data will allow external researchers picked for Kennedy’s autism studies to study ‘comprehensive’ patient data with ‘broad coverage’ of the U.S. population for the first time, NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said.”
CBS also adds that “a new disease registry is being launched to track Americans with autism, which will be integrated into the data. Advocacy groups and experts have called out Kennedy for describing autism as a ‘preventable disease,’ which they say is stigmatizing and unfounded.”
“By bringing the data into one place,” Bhattacharya “said it could give health agencies a window into ‘real-time health monitoring’ on Americans for studying other health problems too.”
“What we’re proposing is a transformative real-world data initiative, which aims to provide a robust and secure computational data platform for chronic disease and autism research,” he said.
READ MORE: Trump’s SignalGate Sit-Down Mocked as a ‘Him in a Nutshell’ Moment
Critics warn that a registry of people with autism poses great privacy and health risks, while others wonder about HIPAA violations—especially in light of what some say is Secretary Kennedy’s apparent bias against autism and people on the spectrum.
Last week, Secretary Kennedy’s remarks about children with autism drew intense fire.
“This is an individual tragedy,” Kennedy declared (video below). “Autism destroys families. And more importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, which our children. These are children who should not be, who should not be suffering like this. These are kids who, many of them, were fully functional, and regressed because of some environmental exposure into autism when they’re two years old.”
“And these are kids who will never pay taxes. They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted. And we have to recognize we are doing this to our children,” he alleged, to widespread criticism.
“How are they going to collect all this data without violating HIPAA laws and privacy protection?” Dr. Joel Shulkin asked, as The Daily Dot reported. “How are they going to de-identify all the data so that it cannot be misused against people who are involved in it? And what are they planning to do with that data once they finish their so-called study?”
ASAN, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, warned: “There is no indication that autistic people whose data is being taken would be afforded any say in whether their data is used or what it is used for. This raises significant moral, legal, and practical concerns. People have a right to decide what is done with data about their health. Unethical science is bad science.”
“Medical data can also easily be manipulated by unscrupulous researchers to create the appearance of causation where it does not exist,” ASAN added. “This has already happened this year with an anti-vaccine ‘study’ about autism that RFK Jr. approvingly cited during his confirmation hearing. The study, which was not published in a reputable scientific journal and did not go through peer review, used Medicaid data from Florida to show that children who had doctors visits to receive vaccinations were statistically more likely to also have doctors visits to receive care for autism.”
And the National Consumers League warns that “RFK Jr.’s autism study will pull private medical records, pharmacy data, insurance claims—even data from your fitness tracker—all under the banner of a flawed and stigmatizing narrative that autism is a ‘preventable disease.’ This kind of data grab raises serious questions about privacy, consent, and how personal health info could be misused in the name of speculative science.”
“RFK Jr.’s proposed national autism registry is straight-up dystopian,” declared Democratic strategist Chris D. Jackson. “Centralizing private medical data—from pharmacies, labs, fitness trackers, even veterans—and handing it to third parties? That’s not research. That’s surveillance. Let’s be clear: this echoes the darkest chapters of history, when regimes like Nazi Germany used medical registries to target and dehumanize vulnerable populations.”
READ MORE: ‘Incompetent. Irresponsible. Negligent’: Calls Mount for Hegseth’s Ouster or Prosecution
“And calling autism a ‘preventable tragedy’? That’s not science—it’s dangerous, ableist propaganda. Autistic people deserve respect, not to be tracked, labeled, or erased.”
Dr. Kristin Lyerly, who hosts The Dr. Kristin Lyerly Show, wrote: “I am very concerned about this effort for so many reasons, including health privacy and respect for people and families living with autism. This reeks of eugenics.”
“First RFK Jr says that people on the autism spectrum are useless eaters,” noted Yale Professor of History Timothy Snyder, an expert on authoritarianism. “And then he announces that the government is going to make a list of them, a ‘registry.'”
Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali, like many social media users, wrote: “Nazis did registries by the way.”
Fred Wellman, a West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School graduate, an Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, and now a political consultant and the host of the podcast “On Democracy,” blasted the Trump administration:
“RFK Jr. wants to create a national registry of people with autism. The Admin wants to increase baby supply with a motherhood medal. Trump wants to deport US citizens to a third world gulag. They formed an Anti-Christian Bias Task Force to prosecute people for their speech. A White House advisor is floating arresting Americans for speaking in support of immigrants as terror supporters. Does this all sound familiar?”
Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic Instructor Alejandra Caraballo warned: “This won’t be limited to just autism. They’re building the panopticon to track anyone with any ‘undesirable’ illness. This is eugenics, full stop.”
Fred Guttenberg, an anti-gun violence activist who lost his daughter in the Parkland mass school shooting, wrote: “Help me understand how these lunatics who spent years fighting me on gun safety & used the idea of a government registry to create fear, now believe in a government registry to track people with autism. Everything they say is a lie, & everything they do is designed to hurt people.”
A user on the social media platform X posted this response:
“I’m autistic And when I heard RFK Jr. wants a government registry to track people like me using private medical records I didn’t think ‘safety’ I thought Nazi Germany A roundup’s of disabled people Because I know history And I know exactly what comes after the list is made This isn’t about health This is about control It’s about fear It’s about marking people People like me Neurodivergent people Different people Don’t dress it up as policy This is how roundups begin You want to stop autism discrimination? Start by not creating a fucking list.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
RFK JR: And these are kids who will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job, they’ll never play baseball, they’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted pic.twitter.com/8T3hcYYn9O
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 16, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Taunting SCOTUS’: Concerns Mount Over ‘Openly Contemptuous’ White House
Image via Shutterstock
President Donald Trump announced he will be sitting for an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic who was erroneously included in a group chat about military strikes in Yemen and subsequently broke the SignalGate story.
Trump suggested he agreed to the interview with Goldberg and two other reporters because of the supposed title of the proposed article: “The Most Consequential President of this Century.” And while there have only been four presidents this century, including himself, Trump appeared happy to indulge the reporters in exchange for the compliment.
“Later today I will be meeting with, of all people, Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor of The Atlantic, and the person responsible for many fictional stories about me, including the made-up HOAX on ‘Suckers and Losers’ and, SignalGate, something he was somewhat more ‘successful’ with,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
READ MORE: ‘Incompetent. Irresponsible. Negligent’: Calls Mount for Hegseth’s Ouster or Prosecution
“Jeffrey is bringing with him Michael Scherer and Ashley Parker, not exactly pro-Trump writers, either, to put it mildly! The story they are writing, they have told my representatives, will be entitled, ‘The Most Consequential President of this Century.’ I am doing this interview out of curiosity, and as a competition with myself, just to see if it’s possible for The Atlantic to be ‘truthful.’ Are they capable of writing a fair story on ‘TRUMP’? The way I look at it, what can be so bad – I WON!”
Despite Trump’s dismissals, the “suckers and losers” stories were well-documented, fact-based reporting, as was the SignalGate story.
Finance journalist James Surowiecki of Fast Company and The Atlantic, writes, “This may be my favorite Trump tweet ever – it’s him in a nutshell. He attacks Jeff Goldberg, and complains about The Atlantic. But of course he’s going to do the interview, because he can’t resist being the focus of attention, and being labeled ‘The Most Consequential President.'”
READ MORE: Trump Doubles Down Calling Egg Prices ‘Too Low’ as Costs Soar to Record Highs
Yahoo Finance’s Jordan Weissmann adds, “Trump grudgingly admitting Goldberg was ‘somewhat more successful’ with SignalGate is one of the funniest ‘OK, you got us there’ moments I’ve ever seen.”
Earlier this month Goldberg, speaking about his SignalGate article and Trump, said: “I’m not going to be bullied, because there’s no end to the bullying if you agree to be bullied in the first place. If there are consequences to not bending, fine.”
“It beats selling your soul.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
“If the president of the United States says we’re lying, and I have the truth, I’m going to publish the truth”: Jeffrey Goldberg on The Atlantic’s decision to publish the Signal chats following the Trump administration’s initial response to the leak. https://t.co/YZ5mSWNKr8 pic.twitter.com/kPtAIJhOao
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) April 3, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Taunting SCOTUS’: Concerns Mount Over ‘Openly Contemptuous’ White House
Image via Reuters
‘Reeks of Eugenics’: RFK Jr.’s Autism ‘Registry’ Draws Nazi Germany Comparisons
Trump’s SignalGate Sit-Down Mocked as a ‘Him in a Nutshell’ Moment
Marjorie Taylor Greene Tops List of Ultra MAGA Hardliners Pursuing Promotions — and Power
Marjorie Taylor Greene Tops List of Ultra MAGA Hardliners Pursuing Promotions — and Power
‘Reeks of Eugenics’: RFK Jr.’s Autism ‘Registry’ Draws Nazi Germany Comparisons
Trump’s SignalGate Sit-Down Mocked as a ‘Him in a Nutshell’ Moment
‘Incompetent. Irresponsible. Negligent’: Calls Mount for Hegseth’s Ouster or Prosecution
Trump Doubles Down Calling Egg Prices ‘Too Low’ as Costs Soar to Record Highs
News18 hours ago‘Reeks of Eugenics’: RFK Jr.’s Autism ‘Registry’ Draws Nazi Germany Comparisons
News21 hours agoTrump’s SignalGate Sit-Down Mocked as a ‘Him in a Nutshell’ Moment
News1 day ago‘Incompetent. Irresponsible. Negligent’: Calls Mount for Hegseth’s Ouster or Prosecution
News8 minutes agoMarjorie Taylor Greene Tops List of Ultra MAGA Hardliners Pursuing Promotions — and Power