Hundreds of Virginia citizens this week told their lawmakers they oppose a bill requiring that women undergo a vaginal probe before considering an abortion.

In what organizers labeled "Speak Loudly With Silence," they exercised their right of free speech, largely without saying a word.

Some held restrained signs that read "Choice." On a T-shirt, another churlishly asked, "If you can cut off my reproductive choice, can I cut off yours?"

Neither protester should be denied expression. Neither should even the most offensive reactions in support of the radical measure be stifled because Americans need to be aware of repressive sentiments moving about in the realms of politics.

The Virginia bill joined an accumulation of recent assaults on women’s reproductive rights and their privacy to make intimate decisions undisturbed by religious sects, proselytizing presidential candidates or nasty talking heads.

Although the majority of Americans agree that contraceptives should be covered in health insurance policies, a cadre of Catholic bishops — which has been unable to convince communicants that the pill, condom, tubal ligation and vasectomy are immoral — has gone to the mattresses over the issue despite the White House’s moderation of its initial rules in the federal health care law.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have jumped over the edge, proposing legislation to let employers cut off coverage for any and all drugs (Viagra, anyone?), treatments and procedures they think are immoral.

With full knowledge that such bills are unworkable, the men in suits will huff and puff under the exploitive guise of protecting religious freedom, attempting to damage President Barack Obama and his chances for reelection. If they don’t already, they should understand that religious freedom does not allow imposition of one system of belief on others.

This is a country that places high value on First Amendment rights. Yet for every reasoned debate, there erupts wounding, poisonous words uttered thoughtlessly for political or personal gain.

In the discussion about the Virginia measure, which likely will be withdrawn because of the outcry, a few in the opposition have compared the ultrasound probe with legalizing rape because the bill does not give women a right to refuse. If some deem that characterization over the top, consider a counter remark by a CNN commentator that women who are pregnant have no grounds for objection because "they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy." No one knows whether this insensitive woman, Dana Loesch, truly believes what she said. More likely, she believes such callous declarations will raise her ratings on the noxious meter, grab her more attention and set her on a path to upending Ann Coulter.

None of this noise should encourage government, including the Obama administration, to slice at free speech, even for those who lie about being a war hero, as did Xavier Alvarez when he publicly described himself as a retired Marine who had been awarded a Medal of Honor.

Under federal law, he was prosecuted for making the false claim, but his conviction was overturned by an appeals court, which ruled the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was to hear the case this week. The court should hold for Alvarez despite his insult to those who genuinely received honors for their service. After all, if lying was a crime, the nation’s already crowded prisons would be overwhelmed.

———

Cynthia Oi can be reached at coi@staradvertiser.com.