Our deepest held convictions are often based in our values.
While few will set the same amount of weight on each, diversity in our values allows us to continually test the rationality of our convictions. In the United States, we are free to bring our values to the public sphere and to take action to further our cause. However, when our actions no longer further our original cause and seek only to harm and spite others, we may be certain that we have lost our way.
In Texas, Virginia and half-a-dozen other states, new bills are being introduced that require women seeking to terminate a pregnancy to undergo an ultrasound or other unnecessary medical procedures before having an abortion. Regardless of one’s feelings on abortion, it cannot be denied that these laws do nothing to discourage the procedure or further the anti-abortion cause.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology does not consider routine ultrasounds medically necessary, a point which the advocates of these bills affirm. They claim being required to have and to view an ultrasound gives a woman “more information” with which to make her decision. This necessarily implies that she does not understand that she is pregnant. If she did not understand, she would not be in the clinic in the first place. It is patronizing to assume that a woman has so little understanding of the nature of her own pregnancy that an image could change her mind. It will not.
Tracy Weitz, an assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California at San Francisco, performed a recent study on whether or not forced ultrasounds prior to abortion procedures changed women’s minds and caused them to cancel the procedure; it did not. The study concluded that “viewing an ultrasound is not an indication that a woman will cancel her scheduled procedure, regardless of what emotional response the sonogram elicits.” In the Virginia bill, if a woman refuses to view the ultrasound, she will be made to sign a waiver that will remain on her medical record permanently.
The manner in which that image is obtained is even more worrisome. Most women who choose to terminate a pregnancy do so early — typically prior to 12 weeks. This means that the abdominal ultrasound used in late term pregnancy will be insufficient to view the fetus, especially at the level of detail required by the Virginia bill. As a result, a trans-vaginal ultrasound is used instead. As many legal experts, including Slate Magazine’s Dahlia Lithwick, have noted, the state is basically requiring a woman to submit to forcible vaginal penetration — also known as rape as it is defined by both federal and state law — to obtain an otherwise legal and constitutionally-guaranteed medical procedure.
It is absolutely shocking, not to mention ironic, that legislation this invasive would come from the party of “small government.”
Some defenders of the bill, like Virginia Delegate Kathy Bryon, claim that the abortive procedure itself is invasive, and women should not mind the ultrasound. Despite that many women opt for the non-invasive medication method and they would not be exempt. Others who have been quoted from the halls of legislature claim that because the patient must have previously had intercourse, forcible penetration should not bother them. By this twisted logic, only virgins can be raped.
To illustrate how inappropriate the bill is, Virginia Senator Janet Howell presented a tongue-in-cheek amendment to the bill. Her amendment would require that prior to receiving a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication like Viagra or Cialis; men would be required to undergo a prostate exam and cardiac stress test. Her amendment was promptly vetoed, exposing the roots of this bill’s impropriety: A cardiac stress test and prostate exam are not medically necessary to obtain a Viagra prescription, and the only purpose of such legislation would be to humiliate men sexually — a close parallel to what is being asked of Virginia women.
Forcing an ultrasound on a woman will not change her mind. If the individuals that support these bills want to lessen the number of abortions that occur each year, they should support evidence-based sex education, preventative health clinics and access to effective birth control.
Forcing a woman to have an invasive and unnecessary medical procedure will not help them achieve their goals — unless their only goal is to punish and shame women.
Emily Brooks is an economics senior and may be reached at [email protected].
I find it very strange how a major political parties doctrine and platform advocate cutting services to the poor, invading two countries whos state religion is one they hate and and are harping about getting the goverment out of our lives is now making an invasive procedure mandatory.
As a registered, diagnostic medical sonographer who routinely performs ultrasounds at a private practice, I find this article completely inaccurate. Extremely adequate images to evaluate the baby can be performed by looking trans-abdominally (which is a completely NON-INVASIVE procedure.) I have been performing sonograms for 12 years, and I have experienced first hand women who have CHANGED THEIR MINDS about termination by seeing the heartbeat by an ultrasound as early as 4 weeks gestational age. Most women claim that they did not even know the heart was beating at that time.
Yes but the Virginia bill is not for transabdominal ultrasounds. It is for transvaginal ultrasounds, which as a sonographer you should know involves inserting a probe into the uterus through the vagina, and so is by definition invasive. Such a procedure is NOT medically necessary under most circumstances, again, as you should know. Furthermore your anecdotes do not justify a law that requires women to undergo an invasive, medically unnecessary procedure.
>Forcing an ultrasound on a woman will not change her mind.
But it does. We know that it does. Your theory doesn't fit the facts. I really wish you would address the fact that your articles are constantly full of lies.
>If the individuals that support these bills want to lessen the number of abortions that occur each year, they should support evidence-based sex education, preventative health clinics and access to effective birth control.
I understand that as soon as you saw a law passed about abortion, you immediately went into zealot mode. But consider for a second that the purpose of this law is *not* to restrict access, but to ensure informed consent. I personally find the Virginia law questionable, but I don't understand how a woman can make an informed decision about an abortion if she doesn't…have all the information. You're basically asking doctors to withhold information to get the outcome you desire – more abortions. Because giving more information is likely to decrease the number of abortions, you're opposed to it – but that's not the purpose of the law. It's like saying that speed limits increase trip times, and thus should be banned as a waste of money. No, they save lives because fewer people drive recklessly.
The Texas law is an excellent effort to remove the shackles that the white pro-choice movement has placed on minority women seeking medical help when pregnant. White women like Ms. Brooks are happy to let black and hispanic babies be aborted, because the underclasses don't deserve to have children – they're too stupid too. I believe that minorities deserve to have access to all the information that white women have access to (by nature of higher economic standing). The Texas law ensures that all women get all the information about their medical condition before an abortion. It does nothing more, and nothing less. This is a laudable goal, and does absolutely nothing to restrict women's reproductive rights (anymore than the state mandating that abortions be performed under sterile conditions does).
I'm sorry that your hatred of children is so great that it prevents you from seeing these simple facts. It's very sad when an otherwise intelligent person's ability to reason is destroyed by fanaticism.
Your comments are completely uncalled for because neither make sense to what this article has said. The first part of your comment claims that forcing an ultrasound changes the minds of women but this article gives facts about a study that shows it doesn't! The second part of your comment is completely irrelevant! Nowhere in this article is there any mention of race! Why did you even have to mention race? Why African American and Hispanic? You do know there are other minorities out there right? Also, what makes you think that minorities are the only ones having abortions! Please get your facts straight before making comments like these because FYI, the number of abortions by race is public information.
>The first part of your comment claims that forcing an ultrasound changes the minds of women but this article gives facts about a study that shows it doesn't!
Again, you are assuming that my goal outcome is to reduce the number of abortions. It is not. The study stated explicitly that the only thing examined was the choice to abort or not. I don't care whether a woman chooses to abort, I care whether she makes an informed decision.
> The second part of your comment is completely irrelevant! Nowhere in this article is there any mention of race! Why did you even have to mention race? Why African American and Hispanic?
Because these are the minorities the pro-choice activists repress.
> You do know there are other minorities out there right?
Not that have lower income and education quotients than whites.
>Please get your facts straight before making comments like these because FYI, the number of abortions by race is public information.
You make the same mistake that Ms. Brooks does. I don't care about the number of abortions, I can about informed consent. It's not possible to be informed about your condition if you haven't seen an ultrasound, and had the fetus's condition described to you. White women have a higher level of education than blacks and hispanics (on average) and so are less likely to be very well informed about the biological realities of pregnancy and abortion. It's not a hard and fast rule, but the insistence on abortion as a 'solution' to the 'problem' of unwanted children is transparently racist.
As the article states, if the woman didn't know she was pregnant then she wouldn't be getting an abortion. She doesn't want or need to know the condition of the fetus, all she needs to know is that it's there and she doesn't want it to be there. Why would there need to be an ultrasound to let her know that a fetus is growing in her uterus if she already knows she's pregnant? That's where the law is invasive. All a woman needs to know to make the "informed" decision to have an abortion is to know she's pregnant. So you're comment about minorities not having the education to make an informed decision because they are not educated enough is again irrelevant. All the education and information they need to make the decision on having an abortion is the fact that they are pregnant; which can easily be determined by an at home pregnancy test.
>As the article states, if the woman didn't know she was pregnant then she wouldn't be getting an abortion.
Except the study also mentions (but not this article) that some women don't realize their fetus has a heartbeat. There is plenty of information
> She doesn't want or need to know the condition of the fetus, all she needs to know is that it's there and she doesn't want it to be there.
Well, statistically speaking most women are pro-choice but anti-DNX/Partial Birth. That suggests to me that the condition of the baby is important to make a decision about whether to abort or not.
>Why would there need to be an ultrasound to let her know that a fetus is growing in her uterus if she already knows she's pregnant?
To understand the condition of the fetus.
> That's where the law is invasive.
Of course it's invasive. There are plenty of laws that are invasive. It's against the law for a Doctor to discharge a patient without ensuring she is healthy enough to be discharged. This often requires batteries of invasive tests. Why is it invasive? Because it ensures the highest standard of medical care. The medical needs of the mother and fetus outweigh the other factors.
Also, given that this woman is about to have a suction tube inserted into her uterus and the endometrium removed by scraping (potentially, at any rate) let's dispense with the notion that transabdominal ultrasound is invasive.
> So you're comment about minorities not having the education to make an informed decision because they are not educated enough is again irrelevant.
No, it's not. Your comment that "the condition of the fetus is irrelevant" is highly subjective and completely unsupported by facts.
>All the education and information they need to make the decision on having an abortion is the fact that they are pregnant; which can easily be determined by an at home pregnancy test.
I disagree. This is like insisting that people don't need to have all the risks of a medical procedure disclosed to them, because they understand they're sick. To many women, there is a significant difference between terminating the fetal cell ball and terminating a fetus with a pulse. That may not be the case for you – and more power to you, but it's certainly not the case for all – and it is certainly *not* beyond the realm of possibility that, due to the failures of our education system, a person might not understand that. (After all, the church insists that the fetus is alive at conception – and the bible suggests that it's only alive when birth begins – this is a pretty broad definition from religion). And because the white overclass is more likely to have a good education than minorities, the deficit of knowledge falls more heavily on minority women.
The most important point is will this be something that taxpayers need to get involved in. These unnecessary attacks on women's own reproductive rights while refusing to provide social programs to those very women on the edge of keeping/aborting is just immoral. Especially when they have effectively made it basically illegal to use taxpayer monies to have abortions anyway. So while the article may not be completely factual about the nature of all sonograms, it demonstrates the central point – gov't GET OUT of my bedroom, my home AND my doctor's office.
>it demonstrates the central point – gov't GET OUT of my bedroom, my home AND my doctor's office.
OK, but don't come crying to me when you find out your heart surgen got his MD at clown college.
And don't come crying to me when the gov't is trying to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. Oh that's right, you are most likely a male, meaning that so long as you are religious and heterosexual, you are fine….for now. BTW that is a crap argument that you don't have evidence that not forcing a woman to have a sonogram. These laws are to force or guilt women into keeping children…I don't see you being told what you can and can't do with your reproductive rights….being forced or guilted into a decision does not an informed decision make
>And don't come crying to me when the gov't is trying to tell you what you can and can't do with your body.
I don't; the government already does this in several areas so let's leave the non sequiturs at the door, shall we?
>Oh that's right, you are most likely a male, meaning that so long as you are religious and heterosexual, you are fine….for now.
You are going into fanatic mode. I get it, people have been using codewords and assailing reproductive rights so long that you can't tell the difference, but here's the kicker: I don't oppose the right for a woman to have an abortion (with certain limitations, obviously – no abortions to choose sex, no abortions late in the 3rd trimester – what I think most people would agree are reasonable restrictions); I *support* women's opportunity to make an *informed* decision. We've already heard dozens of anecdotes in Texas of women who "didn't realize their baby had a heartbeat." That's a pretty substantial revelation – imagine if you were lying on the side of the road and the paramedics pronounced you dead because they didn't "realize you had a heartbeat."
Your goal is to keep the same number of abortions. I honest and truthfully *don't care* how many abortions there are. I simply want women to make an informed decision, which isn't possible without knowing the condition of the fetus.
The Virginia law is a special case that I would probably oppose (because it is an unnecessarily invasive diagnostic procedure when there are alternatives available) but the reality remains. You're flat out demanding that women be uninformed about the condition of the fetus because the fetus is irrelevant. If it's irrelevant, then why perform the abortion at all? Let it grow, give birth then give up for adoption? Because it *is* relevant. It's a spurious argument. You guys can do better, the reason you're struggling to come up with a rational case against this argument is because there isn't one – you're having a visceral reaction to something because you're conditioned to response to any conversation about reproductive rights that way. It's a more interesting dicussion than you're allowing for.
"You guys can do better, the reason you're struggling to come up with a rational case against this argument is because there isn't one – you're having a visceral reaction to something because you're conditioned to response to any conversation about reproductive rights that way. It's a more interesting dicussion than you're allowing for."
By all means, then….enlighten us "fanatics" in this "more interesting" discussion.
>BTW that is a crap argument that you don't have evidence that not forcing a woman to have a sonogram.
I don't recall saying "I don't have evidence that not forcing to have a sonogram." I don't understand what you're saying here.
>These laws are to force or guilt women into keeping children…
No, they aren't. This study demonstrates that conclusively – as the editorial above noted *the sonograms don't significantly change the rate of abortions.* Thus your argument about "restricting access" is horse****.
>.I don't see you being told what you can and can't do with your reproductive rights
And I don't see you being told that, either.
>being forced or guilted into a decision does not an informed decision make
This is totally fallacious. You're *commenting* on an article that contradicts what you are asserting here. There is scientific evidence that *proves* you wrong. Please retract and try again.
I'm actually not going in a zealot mode, or fanatic mode. I am opposed to the assumption that women be REQUIRED to have a sonogram in order to access a legal reproductive action. It is a personal choice, and for those that are properly educated on health and reproduction in sex/health education, they would already know this. So the foundation of the problem is the junked health education that is being provided. I am getting a very "know it all" and condescending tone from you, btw, and it is very unbecoming. This is not an ad hominem attack, this is just an FYI
>I'm actually not going in a zealot mode, or fanatic mode. I am opposed to the assumption that women be REQUIRED to have a sonogram in order to access a legal reproductive action
No, you're not. The State Board of Health makes all *kinds* of requirements about medical treatment; many of which have to do with informed consent. Did you know that in order to perform a life-saving medical procedure, doctors *have* to describe the risks to the patient or next-of-kin, then get their approval? What a burdensome and ridiculous regulation! I can't believe that the state is involved in what *I* do with *my* body! I know I want my life saved, I don't need the state to *force* my doctor to lecture me about the consequences of blah blah blah.
You're not railing against informed consent, which is what the sonogram law relates to. You're railing against a reduction in the number of abortions which Ms. Brooks helpfully insists doesn't happen.
> I am getting a very "know it all" and condescending tone from you, btw, and it is very unbecoming. This is not an ad hominem attack, this is just an FYI
Look whos' talking.