Even if women are being coerced into getting an abortion, wouldn't they provide written/verbal consent to avoid going against whoever is coercing her (who is probably abusive)? Should women also have to give verbal/written consent that no one is forcing her to give birth when she'd prefer an abortion?

Honestly, I don't think it's that big of a deal making someone sign a form saying they agree to a medical procedure. I had to do the same thing for my dental appointment today. If it's being used to intimidate women or as an opportunity for the doctor to proselytize, that's one thing, but just signing a form saying you consent to the procedure? That's standard medical practice for anything invasive. It's not nearly as bad as say, forcing the doctor to read a statement to the women saying she's ending a life.

Honestly, I don't think it's that big of a deal making someone sign a form saying they agree to a medical procedure. I had to do the same thing for my dental appointment today. If it's being used to intimidate women or as an opportunity for the doctor to proselytize, that's one thing, but just signing a form saying you consent to the procedure? That's standard medical practice for anything invasive. It's not nearly as bad as say, forcing the doctor to read a statement to the women saying she's ending a life.

Yes, s.pisaster, but did you have to sign a form saying that you personally made the decision to have a dental procedure all by your wee little womanly self?

The point is that they are, yet again, treating abortion as though it is different from other medical procedures and surgery. Of course a woman will have to sign a consent form -- now she's going to have to sign an other one saying that she consented to the consent. The problem isn't so much the additional procedures, it's the implication that we must automatically assume that women can't or don't make their medical procedures, and yet another legal establishment of the concept that abortion can be treated differently than other surgery.

Also, the last time I checked, doctors ask these kinds of questions anyway. Despite the image of the big bad evil "abortion doctor" that antis like to stir up, they actually do talk to their patients and make sure that they are okay with their decision before performing an abortion -- and send the woman away if they feel that she is unsure, asking her to come back if and once she is.

I always get a little nervous about laws like this because, at a glance, they seem innocuous, even beneficial. People read it and think, "Oh, they're just making sure she's not being forced. That's a good thing." It almost sounds pro-choice.

But like jessicapenn said, they don't do this with women who give birth. Doctors don't have to ask pregnant women at their monthly checkups if they aren't being coerced into going through with pregnancy and birth. The same goes for parental notification and consent laws for minors who seek abortion. If a teenage girl has to ask her parents if she can get an abortion, why doesn't she have to ask if she can give birth or put her child up for adoption or raise her child? Like Cara said, it's because people don't see abortion as a medical procedure. It's like if conditions were ideal, every woman would want to be pregnant. It's like if you don't want to be pregnant, something horrible must have happened to you for you to decide against it.

So now whenever I learn about a new abortion law, I ask myself, Would any lawmaker think of applying the same law for women who choose pregnancy? If the answer is no (which it usually is), I know it's an anti-choice law.

I don't think I ever thought of it in exactly that way before, FEMily. At least, not so coherently. But that is an excellent rule of thumb. Thanks.

I think this law us useless and motivated by anti-choice forces, but I do wish the pro-choice movement focused a bit more on the fact that, just as there are people who would do anything to prevent women from having abortions, there are people who will force/coerce women, either through violence or financial pressure, into having abortions they don't want to have. Pregnancy/abortion are unlike other medical procedures because there are people who have practical and legitimate interests in outcomes, unlike having your wisdom teeth yanked. Some guy is going to pay child support if a pregnancy goes to term, parents of a teen will have to help raise a grandchild (or more likely, just care about the damage to their reputations because their 15 year old got pregnant). I don't know what the solution is (this law definitely isn't it), but I'm always suprised by the parental conset laws. They come from a mind set that no parent would want their daughter to have an abortion. I know more women who were pressured/forced to have abortions in their teens than those whose parents tried to stop them. And I know that these women were harmed by having abortions they did not want to have. Coercive abortion isn't something that just happens in China. And being forced to have one is just as bad as being forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

I think this law us useless and motivated by anti-choice forces, but I do wish the pro-choice movement focused a bit more on the fact that, just as there are people who would do anything to prevent women from having abortions, there are people who will force/coerce women, either through violence or financial pressure, into having abortions they don't want to have. Pregnancy/abortion are unlike other medical procedures because there are people who have practical and legitimate interests in outcomes, unlike having your wisdom teeth yanked. Some guy is going to pay child support if a pregnancy goes to term, parents of a teen will have to help raise a grandchild (or more likely, just care about the damage to their reputations because their 15 year old got pregnant). I don't know what the solution is (this law definitely isn't it), but I'm always suprised by the parental conset laws. They come from a mind set that no parent would want their daughter to have an abortion. I know more women who were pressured/forced to have abortions in their teens than those whose parents tried to stop them. And I know that these women were harmed by having abortions they did not want to have. Coercive abortion isn't something that just happens in China. And being forced to have one is just as bad as being forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

I went to school in Wisconsin for a year, and it's so sad that the state forgets that it produced such greats as Fighting Bob LaFollette, Gaylord Nelson, and Russ Feingold, among others, and does things like this.

Because if they're being forced, this is a sure way to find out.

What's to stop someone who's being forced to get an abortion from lying when signing a form like that? If you've got a violent partner or parents who will kick you out if you don't get an abortion, chances are you're just going to sign the paper saying you give consent, even if you don't.

I do find it rather patronizing that lawmakers don't feel that we women can make these decisions for ourselves, but I don't think that this law will convince many women who are forced into abortions from reconsidering. Maybe I'm missing something here, but that's just my impression.

What's to stop someone who's being forced to get an abortion from lying when signing a form like that? If you've got a violent partner or parents who will kick you out if you don't get an abortion, chances are you're just going to sign the paper saying you give consent, even if you don't.

I do find it rather patronizing that lawmakers don't feel that we women can make these decisions for ourselves, but I don't think that this law will convince many women who are forced into abortions from reconsidering. Maybe I'm missing something here, but that's just my impression.

You are so correct, FEmily! If there ever is a bill mandating women to sign a form saying that she consents to giving birth, then the pro-birthnuts would go crazy, screaming "It's unconstitutional!"

I think the "consent to giving birth" analogy doesn't work. if you're pregnant and you don't have an abortion (something another person does to you, so they must obtain your consent to do it) you will give birth. you don't need a doctor to do anything to you to make that happen. Now, you may die and your baby may die without medical assistance, but you will give birth. There is nothing to consent to, your body just does it. Kind of like you can consent to having intercourse (something you do with someone else) but you can't consent to the actual conception (something that happens on its own).
If you frame it as consenting to continuing a pregnancy, a doctor doesn't do anything to continue the pregnancy so they don't need to get a woman's consent. Abortion is a medical procedure, pregnancy is not. And I do think that most halfway decent OB/GYN's inquire into whether a pregnancy was planned and what a woman wants to do regarding carrying the pregnancy to term.
If you can't deliver vaginally, you actually do have to sign a consent for a C-Section (consent to giving birth, in a sense). There have been several cases where hospitals/doctors have tried to obtain orders compelling women to have c-sections when they began having complications with their pregnancies. I think a woman was prosecuted for refusing a c-section and then delivering a stillborn baby.
http://www.now.org/press/03-04/03-12.html
Now that's scary.

I think the "consent to giving birth" analogy doesn't work. if you're pregnant and you don't have an abortion (something another person does to you, so they must obtain your consent to do it) you will give birth. you don't need a doctor to do anything to you to make that happen. Now, you may die and your baby may die without medical assistance, but you will give birth. There is nothing to consent to, your body just does it. Kind of like you can consent to having intercourse (something you do with someone else) but you can't consent to the actual conception (something that happens on its own).
If you frame it as consenting to continuing a pregnancy, a doctor doesn't do anything to continue the pregnancy so they don't need to get a woman's consent. Abortion is a medical procedure, pregnancy is not. And I do think that most halfway decent OB/GYN's inquire into whether a pregnancy was planned and what a woman wants to do regarding carrying the pregnancy to term.
If you can't deliver vaginally, you actually do have to sign a consent for a C-Section (consent to giving birth, in a sense). There have been several cases where hospitals/doctors have tried to obtain orders compelling women to have c-sections when they began having complications with their pregnancies. I think a woman was prosecuted for refusing a c-section and then delivering a stillborn baby.
http://www.now.org/press/03-04/03-12.html
Now that's scary.

eava, this isn't about getting consent for the procedure of abortion. It's about signing a form that supposedly makes sure that one isn't coerced into having an abortion. There's a huge difference. Furthermore, the situation you're talking about would only make sense if the vast majority of women didn't get prenatal care or give birth in a hospital. Medical professionals have plenty of chances to ask their patients if they're remaining pregnant of their own free will or because they're being forced, so why don't they have to do it? Why is this law limited to abortion? Because there's this idea out there that women choose to remain pregnant but are forced to have abortions.

Not only do WI women already have to get a permission slip from themselves for an abortion (sounds like an Onion headline, doesn't it?)

I agree that the "coercion" form is asinine and a way to make things more challening, but I think this sentence is off the mark. I have to get a "permission slight from myself" to get any surgical procedure, so unless the consent form (before this coercion part was added) was different from what you'd sign to get your tonsils out, I don't see what the problem is.

If it were the same informed consent form one has to sign for any other surgery, there wouldn't be any point to legislation. This is just another hoop for a woman getting an abortion to jump through.

See, I have mixed feelings about this, because in high school my best friend was forced to get an abortion by her mother. At the time she didn't want it and was very traumatized, but now admits that it was probably a better decision because she wasn't ready to have a baby and wouldn't be a very good mom. She still regrets it, though, and wishes it hadn't happened, though she also is glad she didn't have a baby.

It's situations like that which pro-choice advocates are dealing with. It's just a lose-lose situation, no matter how you slice it.

I would like something in place to prevent women from being forced to abort against their will by parents or partners, abusive or not. But I don't think this is it. I'm sure if my friend had been presented a form like this, she would have just signed it, even though she WAS being forced, even if her mother wasn't in the room. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the procedure, because if she'd been really intent on not getting an abortion she would have reached out to someone and asked for help...I had volunteered to help her keep it if she really wanted it.

But what forms like this COULD do is be used against the woman who signs them. Say an abused women tells a court or the law that her abuser forced her to get an abortion, just another instance of control and manipulation. They pull out the form and say, "So you lied when you signed this. Why should we believe you aren't lying now?"

It won't help and it could hurt.

Probably the best way to prevent unwanted abortions is to have involved and observant medical personnel, who can sensitively ask if this is what the patient wants, and provide information that she may not have as to other options .

See, I have mixed feelings about this, because in high school my best friend was forced to get an abortion by her mother. At the time she didn't want it and was very traumatized, but now admits that it was probably a better decision because she wasn't ready to have a baby and wouldn't be a very good mom. She still regrets it, though, and wishes it hadn't happened, though she also is glad she didn't have a baby.

It's situations like that which pro-choice advocates are dealing with. It's just a lose-lose situation, no matter how you slice it.

I would like something in place to prevent women from being forced to abort against their will by parents or partners, abusive or not. But I don't think this is it. I'm sure if my friend had been presented a form like this, she would have just signed it, even though she WAS being forced, even if her mother wasn't in the room. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the procedure, because if she'd been really intent on not getting an abortion she would have reached out to someone and asked for help...I had volunteered to help her keep it if she really wanted it.

But what forms like this COULD do is be used against the woman who signs them. Say an abused women tells a court or the law that her abuser forced her to get an abortion, just another instance of control and manipulation. They pull out the form and say, "So you lied when you signed this. Why should we believe you aren't lying now?"

It won't help and it could hurt.

Probably the best way to prevent unwanted abortions is to have involved and observant medical personnel, who can sensitively ask if this is what the patient wants, and provide information that she may not have as to other options .

Well, aren't we revealing ourselves to be good little anti-choicers?

A LOT of abortions are coerced. If a woman would like to have the child and is threatened into abortion, is that okay? So what is the "feminist" 'tude - that it's okay since it's abortion and not birth? Forcing a woman into an abortion = good, "forcing" a woman into birth (when, most of the time, she consented to sex) = bad. Let's see: both involve her body, both involve her reproductive system. Perhaps it is because you don't believe that women can ever consent to pregnancy? That abortions are as natural as urinating?

My, my, what good little pro-aborts, anti-choicers you all are. Anti-choice, anti-life, anti-freedom.

What's to stop someone who's being forced to get an abortion from lying when signing a form like that? If you've got a violent partner or parents who will kick you out if you don't get an abortion, chances are you're just going to sign the paper saying you give consent, even if you don't.

Well, if the line has something next to it with information about resources for women in crisis pregnancies, counseling options, and legal resources, it would be pretty fantastic. Couple that with on-site, low-cost (or free) counseling for women, and you have a situation in which women will be able to make good decisions for themselves.

And if you can lie, how is this "anti-choice"? After all, if you can just lie, it's not a functional barrier to those sacred abortions, now is it?

I'm especially snarky about this because it is RELENTLESSLY pro-woman. If you want to read "demeaning" into everything, that's only showing your own neuroses - but this is not demeaning to women.

A quick google search of stats reveals the following:
*Guttmacher says that 23% of women who abort - and 30% of those who are between the ages of 18 and 19 - are doing so because of their boyfriends or husbands. http://books.google.com/books?id=T9CYQmm7bzEC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=percent+of+abortions+coerced&source=web&ots=hIGwtFRfjK&sig=8t6eDOdOTPjnBxil_2iCID9jeCk
*Other groups tag the number at 64%
http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/989

Let's get real. Do we expect that women in difficult situations - and pregnant on top of it all - will start doing a Charlie's Angels, or do we want to put safeguards in place?

Honestly, YOU are the ones patronising women into kingdom come. It's absolutely sick. Let's examine the cognitive dissonance that goes on to oppose a bill like this:
1) You must believe that a husband, parent, or boyfriend has little effect on a woman's decision to abort, despite withholding of financial support, threats of throwing out of the house or breaking up, or the looming specter of physical harm;
2) but you must simultaneously believe that picking up a pen and writing about twenty script letters poses an insurmountable barrier to abortion.

May I laugh? HARD?

---
You are so correct, FEmily! If there ever is a bill mandating women to sign a form saying that she consents to giving birth, then the pro-birthnuts would go crazy, screaming "It's unconstitutional!"
ROTFLMAO!

Your projector is on. You might want to turn it off. See, conservatives don't use the Constitution as a bludgeon when they don't get their way. They leave room for legislation; it's the Progressives that use it to eliminate all possibilities of legislative action when they can't win in Congress.

---

Again: WOW. I would have thought that any woman in her right mind - pro-choice and pro-life - would be beating the drum of preventing coerced abortions. Men pressuring women into making a lifelong decision that THEY will suffer for: horrible. Unless, of course, you love yourself some abortion.

Opposing this is like opposing National Cuddle Day. What is there NOT to like about a bill that tries to change society and let women know that they have a LEGAL RIGHT to not be coerced into this? What is wrong with women, mentally beaten down and scared because she's carrying some jerk's child, knowing that society disapproves?

Oh, wait, it might stop her from having an abortion. Let's all protest.

/feminist rant.