Congrats....you're now a rape apologist.
Ironbite-congrats.
Or he could be correct, under Virginia law....
"If any person has sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person. . . he or she shall be guilty of rape."
That is the entirety of rape under VA law. Note the phrase "sexual intercourse"? That is used twice in the statute?
"Sexual intercourse" is not defined in VA law. Which would lead a jurist to common definition.
From Ballentine's Legal Dictionary: "1. The actual contact of the sexual organs of a man and a woman, and an actual penetration into the body of the latter."
From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: "1: heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2: intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis"
Since an ultrasound does not involve either definition of "sexual intercourse," the ultrasound cannot fit the legal definition of "rape" in VA law.
There is another VA statute, which could be referenced here...
"An accused shall be guilty of inanimate or animate object sexual penetration if he or she penetrates the labia majora or anus of a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, other than for a bona fide medical purpose, or causes such complaining witness to so penetrate his or her own body with an object or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in such acts with any other person or to penetrate, or to be penetrated by, an animal, and
1. The complaining witness is less than 13 years of age, or
2. The act is accomplished against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person, or through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness."
An argument could be made that the law in question would violate this law, since there is no "bona fide medical purpose." However, that would create a legal catch-22, as a doctor would be forced to violate either the statute being discussed in this thread, or the statute I just quoted. As such, I cannot see the Commonwealth actually getting convictions in such a circumstance. (It would be an interesting legal challenge to the force-ultrasound law, though...) Also, there is no "force, threat or intimidation of" the woman.
Finally, there is a third possible criminal charge...
"An accused is guilty of sexual battery if he sexually abuses. . . the complaining witness against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat, intimidation, or ruse,..."
Well, no "force, threat, intimidation, or ruse" in play here. The "complaining witness" willingly went to the medical facility (no force, threat, or intimidation) and was told she would have to undergo this procedure (no ruse).