On Saturday March 3, 2012, more than 500 men and women marched through downtown Richmond and then gathered on the steps of the Virginia State Capitol in Richmond to demonstrate their opposition to legislation that would have required women to undergo an ultrasound examination before terminating a pregnancy.

Protesters who refused Capitol Police orders to "disperse" or move to another location were met by helmeted, masked and plastic-shield-carrying Riot Police, supported by a Virginia State Police S.W.A.T team armed with automatic weapons.

Though no acts of violence were reported, more than 30 of the protesters were arrested and held in buses, hands cuffed behind them, for more than six hours before processing.

The original version of the legislation, Senate Bill 484, had been introduced by State Senator Jill Vogel, supported by 11 others, and for a time by Governor Robert McDonnell himself. It would have required women seeking abortions in Virginia to undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound inspection, and required that their doctors, on request, show them the results of that inspection.

A preponderance of pro-choice opponents of the legislation characterized it as yet another incremental step in an ongoing, state-by-state effort to ban abortion, and, perhaps, birth control in the United States.

Libertarians denounced the bill as yet another government intrusion into the private lives of American citizens.

More traditional conservatives objected to the bill's perceived effects on doctor/patient relationships.

The particularly intrusive nature of the instrumentation and procedures required by the original legislation lent further support to opponents.

Once John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Saturday Night Live and the blogoshere entered the fray, the bill was being credited with not only making the State of Virginia a laughingstock, but ending whatever 2012 Vice Presidential ambitions Governor McDowell may had harbored..

SB 484 was eventually withdrawn by it's principal sponsor, and a less-intrusive, though similar variant substituted in the Virginia House.

The Eccentric asked State Senator Vogel to comment on both the police response to the demonstrations in Richmond, and the unprecedented state and national reaction to the demonstrations as well as the bill itself.

The Demonstration

"I was appalled to hear the results of the protest," Vogel told the Eccentric. "It is totally uncharacteristic of law enforcement at the Capitol to hinder protests. Organized, public displays of protest or support are a common event at the Capitol and people who take the time to visit Richmond and make their positions known are usually given great deference and treated with dignity and respect.

"I go out of my way," she said, "to visit with protestors and organized advocacy groups when they come to petition at the Capitol. I also go out of my way to make them feel welcome and feel that their views matter. Because their positions DO matter and I find it offensive and certainly undemocratic if peaceful protestors were mistreated." Vogel was not, herself, in Richmond on March 3.

Vogel on HB484

Asked to comment on reaction to what she terms the "informed consent bill," Vogel was direct. "I killed the Senate bill," she said, "a bill which began with very good intentions."

Conceding that she was "embarrassed," by the whole thing Vogel noted that the bill "had twelve Senate patrons and it had bipartisan support, including the actual patrons who were Republicans and Democrats." Vogel also noted that she "had been promised" and perhaps mistakenly "took for granted" that some very simple medical facts "were at the heart of the legislation."

"I think of myself as an honest, straightforward and modern person who thinks that government should stay out of your life, out of your business, out of your bedroom and out of your health care. I only make exceptions when there is a legitimate health reason, " she said, "and I genuinely believed that there was a benefit to women having more information about their own health and about the procedure."

She said she was particularly distressed that the controversy generated by HB484 had so overshadowed what the Senate had accomplished on "transportation, public safety, teachers' pay and state employee pension and other things that really matter around here."

"It was very clear that ultrasounds were the standard and everyone gets one prior to the procedure to terminate, period. This bill was only intended to offer the woman the results of the ultrasound - just an option."

This year, Vogel noted the Virginia House and Senate have often been " . . . criticized in the press for introducing bills on social issues. In fact, " she pointed out, "a mere 12 of the 686 bills introduced in the Senate have any impact on social matters.

Her primary goal in introducing HB484, and that of her co-sponsors, she said, had been simple: " . . . to bring Virginia's informed consent rules in line with current reproductive technology."

"It was sure never my intent to offend women or to trespass in any way on their rights, she said. "The bill offered a woman the opportunity to view the results of an ultrasound in advance of a procedure to terminate a pregnancy and was strictly optional. Women would not be forced to view the results of the ultrasound, only offered an opportunity to do so. My bill was based on language used in 20 other states that have similar informed consent laws."

"This was all consistent with the information provided during initial discussions about the measure" Vogel asserted. "Clinics currently perform - and recommend - ultrasounds as a routine part of screening. The procedure is considered to be a safety measure constituting current "best practices."

"Planned Parenthood advocates the same ultrasound technology in their clinics," she said, "and the National Abortion Federation includes the procedure in their standards".

Asked about what doctors thought, Vogel noted that "Physicians had explained that ultrasounds reflect the standard of care required to safely perform a procedure. It is the only way to determine gestational age and to screen for serious complications (like ectopic pregnancy), which place the mother at increased risk."

"Finally," Vogel noted, "patient advocates have emphasized how critical it is that women have access to information in order to make good decisions about their health. Ironically, that was precisely the Senate's posture on a mammogram bill that was voted unanimously out of committee just minutes before my bill was heard. The mammogram bill required that women be provided results of certain mammogram tests."

Women's Rights

"It was never my intent to force a woman to have a vaginal screening against her will, only to ensure that women seeking abortions are fully informed and that current state-of-the-art safety procedures are followed," Vogel concluded. "I struck the bill over the objections of the Governor and others who have worked hard on the bill. But at this point in the process, it was for me a matter of conscience. New information about the ultrasound bill placed a number of facts in conflict. After new feedback from physicians, clinicians, lawyers and constituents, I had to conclude I clearly did not have all of the answers. Also, I learned the Governor was hurrying amendments to the floor and at that point it was time for me to call 'time out' on my bill."

Asked about the flak she had taken from all quarters as a result of her role in introducing the bill, she noted that " . . . the difficult work of legislation requires an open mind, a measured reaction and respect for those who disagree."

"I have great respect for my colleagues," Vogel told the Eccentric, "and try to engage in conduct that is always kind, even when we vociferously disagree.

"Some of the public debate on this matter was at times undignified. But I have to acknowledge an unusual act by Delegate David Englin (D-Alexandria) who took to the House floor Friday to extend a public apology to me for misstatements he made recently in the national media. I was very appreciative and in the end it is a good lesson for us all in kindness and decorum."