Because I'm going to be a lot less emotional about choosing to have an abortion after a lecture on why it is wrong?

Sue, step down from your position as representative, so not to be a hypocrite.

I am PRETTY SURE that women who get abortions know what is going to happen when they go. It's not like they are tricked into going, or like it's a fun outing. Hmm..picnic or abortion? I can't decide!
Also, I was under the impression that any good doctor would explain ANY procedure to a patient. Correct me if I am wrong.

this is disgusting. it always stings a little more when it's women saying things like this.

Oh jeebus. So I took a parenting class called "Conscious Discipline" and one of the key items we discussed was the way emotions played with the brain (and how this effects dealing with a two year old kicking and screaming on the floor).

Basically (VERY basically), when you hit a certain emotional level, the fight-or-flight senses in your brain start sending singles to different areas. SO, if my daughter is on the floor in a mess kicking and screaming, she's operating from the Brain Stem and not the Frontal Lobe. This effects decision making. The step in between the high level function of the Frontal Lobe and Brain Stem is the Limbic System- it's when you're angry and you open your mouth and your mom's words come pouring out of you even though you swore you never would ever say that to your own kid. You're not 100% functioning in the Limbic system, it's more of a memory / storage portion of the brain.

THAT said, the comments above are such a gross distortion of that science, it's almost revolting. Basically, you're in the Brain Stem emotionally when you've lost the FUNCTION TO SPEAK (like when kids just sit and scream nothing- not even "no" or "momma"). So yes, I think if someone is in an abortion waiting room and has lost the ability to SPEAK she is so emotionally upset, maybe a bit of a time out is in order. But please.

SarahMC--exactly what I was thinking.

I just emailed her and told as much. I also told her to keep her hands off my brain AND my uterus.

Sheesh. I really just cannot believe that we seem to be moving further backward with each passing day. How can we fight this bullshit? It's permeating on such a grand scale--I feel like we should do something akin to what Angelina and Jon did in Hackers, send out an apb to all feminists the world over and descend, en masse, upon DC and just stay there, never leaving until this shit starts turning around.

I mean, WTF? Aside from the obvious hypocrisy (how can you be a politician if you're just a wittle woman?)And since when is she qualified to talk about any part of the brain? Where's her neurology degree? GRRR! I hate misogynist women a smidge more than misogynist men because they confirm what the misogynist men already believe!

I want to scream.

I'm no psychology major or anything, but doesn't the right side of your brain rule emotions? So if you were emotional wouldn't it make sense that you would be thinking with the right side of your brain? Or am I spewing out a bunch of pop-psychology?

That being said, I hate the assumption that every woman who has an abortion must be experiencing some huge emotional trauma. I can imagine that experiencing 9 months of pregnancy, 28 hours of labor, and 18+ years of raising a child would be much more emotionally jarring than the amount of time it takes to decide to have an abortion and go through with it, even if a woman did experience depression afterwards as the result of her decision.

Are we assuming the "you" is specific to women, and not just "people". It's still a stupid as hell statement, but I didn't read it as "WOMEN who are emotional are not thinking..."

Maybe I'm being and apologist.

The old saying goes that "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Well, if they had this waiting period for vasectomies or vasectomy reversals, the streets would flow with blood.

lilianna28,

Women are intelligent, but when you're emotional

The Rep's statement implies that in the period before a decision to get an abortion is made, the woman doesn't take time to consider what she is doing.

Or, that women are "emotional" prior to making the decision and going into the office, but after being exposed to right wing propaganda and given 24 hours, will experience 24 hours of pure rationality. Why isn't Sue Burmeister making these "So you're thinking about getting an abortion" pamphlets available to ladies in general, seeking to become purely rational beings?

Even if you're right, lilianna28, she's still making the incorrect assumption that women who want abortions are highly emotional and vulnerable.

I know quite a few women who's only emotions upon getting their abortions were joy and relief.

Politicians should not try to use scientific reasons to back things up because they usually don't get it right. And yes, there are many emotional aspects to decisions. There's an emotional aspects to continuing with the pregnancy or with terminating it. Just spare women the lecture. They're already putting up with protestors and possible judgements from friends/family.

I just emailed her this. I hope it isn't too much but this stuff is really starting to piss me off.
Dear Rep. Sue Burmeister;

This is in response to your comment, "Women are intelligent, but when you're emotional, you're not thinking with the right part of your brain."

I am a thirty year old graduate student and if today I found out I was pregnant- tomorrow I would have an abortion. My decision has nothing to do with listening to the wrong side of my brain; this has to do with making the best decision for myself and my life.

Someday I hope this country will accept the novel idea that women have needs and wants of their own that have nothing to do with their reproductive organs. I hope that sexist and misogynist ideals, like what you stated, will be a thing of the past. Until then, I will keep on fighting narrow minded people like yourself who, unfortunately for this country, permeate our political spectrum.

I heard about her before. I live in Williston, S.C. -- only 36 miles east of her district in Augusta, Ga. And I know that she is a misogynist.

I really hope that the people in Augusta will fire her on November 4.

I love living in Atlanta, but I hate living in Georgia. In 2004, watching Georgia be one of the first states to call for Bush with like 66% in favor...I wanted to pull my hair out. Because of the electoral college, my vote in Georgia for president means absolutely nothing. And then, we always have Republican senators. At least in the House there are a few dems from different districts.

jmlevine: Love it!

And to echo what everyone else has already said, I feel like keeping a pregnancy is a much bigger emotional deal than an abortion. I mean, that is definitely something you need to sit down and think about, even if you are going the route of adoption. "Can I be pregnant for nine months, will it affect my work, graduate school. Can I raise a child?" If a woman can make the decision to keep a pregnancy while full of pregnancy hormones, they should certainly be able to make the decision to get an abortion. Post Partum Depression is an actual affliction recognized by the psychiatric communist..."PAS" is not.

At first, from the picture, I was afraid it was going to be Steve Martin saying something misogynistic, so I'm really glad that it wasn't.

And I thought cognitive science had learned that people who lose the ability to feel emotion (through brain damage) also lose the ability to be rational? That is, they are inextricably linked. So when people talk about pure, cold reason without feeling, it is basically bullshit.

I wish I knew of some studies about this; if any of your psychologist types out there know, hook a sister up.

I agree with the posts everyone here has made about this issue.

I live in Nebraska and am around a lot of pro-lifers here. I am not surprised to hear this kind of language, and I also don't think, if this were my state, that you would have all that many people upset with the language, sadly. Because the people who are against abortion, the pro-lifers, don't see this as a woman's issue. They see this as a moral issue, an issue about *children*. And they also strongly believe that if women knew that a *child* was growing inside them, they would go through a number of uncomfortable/inconvenient/emotionally fraught things to save that child's life. Because, and this is their argument, wouldn't anyone? They value the child's life over the woman's, and in their mind, they would value it over any man's as well. It's just that women are the biological ones that get pregnant.

I find it very difficult to communicate my views to people who believe so strongly in things like this. Any remarks you make about how this is bad and limiting and coercive for women is not as important to them as saving the life of the child. Insignificant in comparison. Many would also say, "But I'd be willing to help the mother keep the child." etc. They're not blind to the consequences of this for women, either - in restricted sexual activity, loss of career opportunities, income, relationships - and that's why they *really* feel that abstinence only education is the way to go and where the women in this position went wrong in the first place. They stick to abstinence only even though it's proven not to work because it's a moral issue, first and foremost, about sexuality, morals, and life.

How do you persuade people like this? I don't think there is any persuading. I don't think they're going to be at all concerned that what the Senator has implied is sexist - even if they acknowledge the sexism, it will be in pursuit of a higher cause.

This law isn't really about women and their emotions to them. That's just the reasoning they are using. They are hoping to persuade women not to have abortions with an ultimate goal of preventing *all* abortions. That's what they really want.

But maybe the other side is - if we can't persuade them, they can't persuade us. But which of us will control the ideas that get passed into law?

I live in Augusta, GA, in Columbia County (there was quite the culture shock coming here from my Northeastern and Southern California roots) and this kind of sentiment runs rampant in the area.

This way of thinking is quite backward but it will not hurt her much in her political career.

While I can agree that going through something extremely emotional can cloud ones logic to an extent it is idiotic to take it this far.

I sent the representative a link to the Guttmacher study that shows all the REAL reasons women choose to have an abortion.

Not that I think it will do any good. It's obvious that this isn't really because women are too emotional to make good decisions. It's just an excuse to put up more roadblocks and pretend that they're saving babies.

Gamma,
I applaud you for sticking by your guns in the face of such opposition. If I were you, I would avoid people like that as much as possible. I feel pro-lifers fail to recognize women as human beings with real needs, wants and dreams and therefore reduce them to solely to their biological role; however, at the end of the day the pro-lifers’ arguments do not hold water. Embryologists and scientists are shocked by statements like “life begins at conception.� There is no scientific evidence to support such a claim and therefore pro-lifers are pushing their religious beliefs on other people which violates the separation between church and state. Overall, if one does not believe in abortion, don’t get one or get a vasectomy and butt out of people’s lives.

I recommend two books that may help you:
War on Choice by Gloria Feldt
Compulsory Pregnancy: The War Against Women by John Swomley

I lived in Georgia for 5 years. It's a seriously ass-backwards fucking state.

I read a story in the UGA paper that was about two gay men being arrested for having anal sex. Cops busted into their house for an unrelated reason and happened upon them doin' it. And they were arrested. I don't remember the outcome, but the fact they two men were arrested for having (consensual, adult) sex is appalling enough.

I was taking poli sci at the time that this 24-hour bullshit law was passed. I did a report on it and it was frustrating that none of the spoiled Atlanta-ites could fathom WHAT I was so outraged about. Probably explained it away as "well, she's from New York, they're all a buncha liberals up there."

It's like a time warp to the 1950s with their attitudes about this kind of thing. I was highly fortunate that I found a gyno who didn't ask me if I was married when she prescribed me birth control. But I bet if I'd have ever needed EC it wouldn't have been so easy.

Once I was in Wal-Mart (before I knew how bad it was) and these two women tried to give me religious pamphlets. I complained to management and they refused to do anything.

Dogs are tied in backyards. And transported in the beds of trucks.

People drive GIANT trucks and SUVs and park them in the compact car spots at Target, so I had to park my actually compact car farther away than I rightfully should have.

My Kerry/Edwards sticker was ripped off my car. Then on my next car (because some beeotch ran a redlight and totaled the first one - did I mention GA drivers suck?) I had a "F the President" sticker on one of the little triangle windows in the back and some fucker keyed it. KEYED it. The scratches went through the sticker to my window.

Have I mentioned how happy I am to be in New York now? I swear I'm never leaving.

My lizard brain wants to kick some pols.

When I decided to try to get pregnant, despite knowing that having kids would change my life and my marriage, upset our finances, and interfere with our ability to do many things we love, that was an emotional decision.

After my first miscarriage, when I decided to keep trying, knowing that another such loss would send me back into depression, that was an emotional decision.

When I finally made it past the first trimester, but proceeded to have a million other pregnancy symptoms, making me utterly miserable and unable to work, keeping the pregnancy was an emotional decision.

No one has ever questioned any of those decisions. No one has ever said I should have gotten more advice, that I should have consulted other people, that I might not have been doing what's best for myself. Even though in a lot of ways, I wasn't doing what's best for myself.

How can I possibly be qualified to decide to create my little boy (to say nothing of raising him) all on my own with no input but my husband's? Shouldn't my doctor have sat me down and made sure I really knew what I was doing?

I think she means that when you're emotional, you're not thinking with the left part of your brain. Left.

Guess someone flunked biology!

"I sent the representative a link to the Guttmacher study that shows all the REAL reasons women choose to have an abortion."

Can you link that study here?

hopeisawakingdream:

go to this page:
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html
on the right side there is a section that has headins, Fact Sheets, Policy Analysis, Research, etc. Under research is a link that says "Why do women have abortions" It is a downloadable pdf file/why I didn't link directly to it.
Page 4 has a table on it listing all the reasons and the percentage of women who put those reasons down.

of course, she could have meant the "correct" part of your brain, but it is funnier to make fun of her for getting it wrong.

Avogadro: Excellent post

Liza: Not everyone in Atlanta is bad. I've found a good many liberal feminist comrades here. Of course, I guess it is different to come here from New York than it was for me to come here from podunk tiny backwards town in TN. Atlanta isn't exactly a liberal enclave, but it's a sight better than some big cities in TN and Georgia and definitely better than smaller cities and towns. In the perspective of the South as a whole, Atlanta is a liberal mecca. Of course, maybe I'm spoiled because I go to an extremely liberal all women's college in Decatur, with a large lesbian, quirky liberal, and anti-war population. (Decatur, not the college, though the college has all those to)

FemiDancer
I've been trying to find some clear stats like that, that's quite interesting.

However, I'm not sure those stats cover this issue. What stats would be useful would be a survey of women '24 hours' after an abortion to determine how many regretted the decision and feel they rush into it.

While I can clearly see sinister motives behind these measures, I can't help but see potential value in a system that ensures the woman is free from undue influence, either internal (temporal emotional state, e.g. panic) or external (from parents or partner). All humans are vulnerable to acting irrationally due to emotions and we should ensure this is not the case for all medical (or other non-reversible life changing) decisions, including abortion.

Where is the harm in delaying the abortion for a short time (24 hours or otherwise)?

FemiDancer, yeah, I knew what she meant. But it's a way to poke fun at the sheer ridiculousness of her "argument," so I like it ;)

I think the survey AND the results taken together are very relevant, Desipis, because it shows the flaw in the rationale behind the 24 hour rule. Statistics alone don't show much, but if you read the study it shows that women are not impulsively having abortions but have very important reasons for doing so.

The 24 hour waiting period punishes mostly lower income women.

The 24 hour period can do a lot of harm. For some reason it is difficult just to travel to a clinic or hospital that will perform an abortion. Waiting 24 hours means having to travel all the way home or spending more money she might not have to stay overnight. Meanwhile, she has to take off work. Not everyone can do that.

If a woman is in an abusive situation it's that much longer for the husband/boyfriend/father to find out or otherwise interfere.

ALso, if the woman can't make it back soon after 24 hours that is pushing back the time when the abortion is performed and there is more risk of complications.

Some women are getting abortions for health reasons.

I'm not sure how 24 hours makes sure a woman is "free from influence" or even "acting irrationally." No one is ever really free from influence, and there's no reason to believe that there's a big percent of women "acting irrationally."

ps, thanks femidancer for the link. I should have provided it in the first place.

While I can clearly see sinister motives behind these measures, I can't help but see potential value in a system that ensures the woman is free from undue influence, either internal (temporal emotional state, e.g. panic) or external (from parents or partner).

1. Why women specifically? Why don't we have any laws like this for procedures specific to men? Maybe men should have to wait 24 hours to get a prescription for Viagra. Or to get treatment for a prostate problem, where there's more than one possible option. "Buddy, I know you're really emotional right now, so we're going to make sure you really take the time to think about if you want surgery or not. So if in 24 hours, you're *really* sure you wanna do this, then we'll go through with the procedure. Okay, buddy? Good boy."

2. Isn't there a possibility that the waiting period creates MORE "undue influence"? Like, a reasonably intelligent woman can be told she has to wait 24 hours, and it won't take her long to figure out that it has something to do with the fact that she wants an abortion (rather than, oh, any other medical procedure under the sun). This might unduly influence her thinking about it -- "why are they making me wait? Could it harm me? Am I supposed to do independent research about this? Am I going to be arrested? Will they tell my husband/boyfriend/parents? Have I done something wrong?" Unless your intent is to dissuade women from getting abortions, there is no way to justify putting this extra restriction on abortion that isn't put on anything else.

All humans are vulnerable to acting irrationally due to emotions and we should ensure this is not the case for all medical (or other non-reversible life changing) decisions, including abortion.

Gee, then I guess emotionally traumatized parents shouldn't get to decide how to treat their child who's just been in a horrible car accident. They're gonna be way too irrational to be trusted. Better to let the doctors decide without input from the parents. Or, better yet, the state!

Where is the harm in delaying the abortion for a short time (24 hours or otherwise)?

Oh, you're totally right. No harm at all in not trusting women to have the capacity to make their own decisions, being fully grown adults and all. Kind of like needing your parents to "ok" you getting your ears pierced. 'Cause, really, I mean, pregnant women are gonna *have* children, in a way they kind of *are* children, aren't they?

When men make poor choices or regretful decisions we marginalize their decision making process with phrases like, "hotheaded" "machismo" "male ego" "cold blooded" "ruthless" or "heartless"...

But in something as critical to the safety of a woman's body but as life-changing as a potential full-term pregnancy and as emotionally challenging as impending motherhood, why is it so offensive to believe that a woman's emotions may weigh heavily in her decision making?

Why is it so much to say, "are you sure you want to go through with this?"

Are we trying to say that every woman is above the added information, moment of patience that is being proposed here?

Got a response already:

There are many organizations out there that would help these women bring their unborn children to term both financially and phsychologically and then place these precious children into the loving arms of women who cannot have children due to infertility or into the arms of women who wish to expand their families by adopting children. There is no lack of parents for these unborn children. Abortion should not be a birth control option. The unborn child also has rights and I don't believe the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the child.

Obviously, you have read only bits of my comments or you would never have gotten the impression that I thought women were incapable of making educated decisions about their health. It was for this very reason that I wanted them to be given educational material about the options available for them as well as the complications an abortion can have, included was also the risks of caring a baby to term. As a woman, I want all options given to me so I can make an informed decision. I would think all women would welcome this.

Sincerely,
Sue Burmeister There are many organizations out there that would help these women bring their unborn children to term both financially and phsychologically and then place these precious children into the loving arms of women who cannot have children due to infertility or into the arms of women who wish to expand their families by adopting children. There is no lack of parents for these unborn children. Abortion should not be a birth control option. The unborn child also has rights and I don't believe the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the child.

Obviously, you have read only bits of my comments or you would never have gotten the impression that I thought women were incapable of making educated decisions about their health. It was for this very reason that I wanted them to be given educational material about the options available for them as well as the complications an abortion can have, included was also the risks of caring a baby to term. As a woman, I want all options given to me so I can make an informed decision. I would think all women would welcome this.

Sincerely,
Sue Burmeister

dananddanica, maybe we will run into each other one day at the Augusta Mall, Circuit City, Best Buy or some other place.

Geek, the response you got, it is obvious that Burmeister is all abount controlling women's bodies.

If we want to be sure to give women information (and you know this is all about altruism): this is the most pro-life stand. When they go to the doctor and discover they are pregnant, they should have to sit for a lecture on pregnancy and the responsibilities of parenthood. A child is too precious to be had by someone who doesn't strongly want to be a parent. That is honoring and valuing a child's life.

Sorry for the double paste -_-

Jovan1984: Totally. The line about the rights of the unborn pretty much gives it away.

There are many organizations out there that would help these women bring their unborn children to term both financially and phsychologically and then place these precious children into the loving arms of women who cannot have children due to infertility or into the arms of women who wish to expand their families by adopting children.

Mmmyes, assuming those children are white, healthy, and able-bodied. If they're darker-skinned, unhealthy, or handicapped (or a combination thereof), the odds of their sitting in foster care until they're sixteen rises dramatically.

That's also assuming that there are no health risks to being pregnant (go look up maternal morbidity and mortality statistics sometime -- I did, and now I'm wondering why anyone ever gets pregnant voluntarily), and that it's easy to give a child up for adoption. (From everything I've heard, in a lot of cases, adoption is a far more gut-wrenching, traumatising experience for the mother than the early-term abortion that could have prevented such a thing.

And that's leaving aside the ethical question of whether it's right to compel someone to go through with such a thing. This is what you are asking -- you are asking a woman to risk her life and health and possibly suffer the deepest possible emotional trauma...simply because you object to a legal medical procedure.

That's without even getting into what happens to the child. I am the child of a forced birth. Abortion was not legal in the country where I was born when I was born. The fact that my very existence was coerced repulses me. (Bet you never thought of that.) I'm also adopted.

How many adopted children do you have, "Sue Burmeister"? Five gets you ten, my parents have one more than you do...

h. williams said: Are we trying to say that every woman is above the added information, moment of patience that is being proposed here?

you are just being flippant to try to prove a point, correct? Because what is proposed above is no moment of patience. The conceit is in the idea that a woman ho has chosen to have an abortion didn't think about it before hand, somehow wasn't "aware" of adoption and the like. And the offense isn't in the idea that it may or may not be an emotional decision. It's in the statement that emotion overcomes reason in women.

But you know that's the point, dontcha?

betty:A child is too precious to be had by someone who doesn't strongly want to be a parent. That is honoring and valuing a child's life.

So, so true

H. Williams, let me explain this to you. I work in an abortion clinic, and women already go through a process of being given information and being asked if they are sure if they want to go through with it. The day of the procedure, we explain to them what to expect, answer any questions they might have, and ask them if they are confident in their decision. The whole process of getting an abortion takes a few hours (ultrasound, counseling, lab work, then the procedure, mixed in with a lot of waiting, unfortunately). Not to mention, we go by appointments so women have at least a few days of waiting already before they come in. Waiting period laws imply that women are irrationally running in and getting it done without thinking, which is insulting and completely out of touch with reality. As if women don't think before making a big decision like this! Or haven't already thought a thousand times what would happen if they unexpectedly got pregnant? Waiting period laws are nothing but unnecessary, insulting nonsense.

Futhermore, I sincerely doubt that the state-written lecture would amount to "are you sure"? I expect that it would contain a lot of scare tactics and misinformation. And why, for that matter, should the state decide what information a women should get before her procedure? That is between her and her doctor, no one else.

Finally, the last reason these kinds of laws are disasters is that they are a barrier to healthcare. A woman who does not have access to a safe, legal abortion in her area has to travel, and take time away from work, get someone to watch her kids, etc. So, having to travel to the clinic to get the lecture, then drive back the next day makes it harder for her to go the procedure done, because she has to make extra arrangements, if she is even allowed to take the time off work. I believe this barrier is the real reason behind these laws, other than the belief that women are emotional children.

"Abortion should not be a birth control option."

I love how for pro-life advocates, abortion is ALWAYS a birth-control option. As if all women are seriously looking to use abortion as a contraceptive!

Thanks, Geek for posting her reply. It's because of people like these that I'm a feminist.

'It's hard to realize that women can choose abortion without the permission of the baby's father.'

'The world says that abortion is "a woman's choice" but the woman in a crisis pregnancy rarely wants to make that choice alone.'

'If she truly is pregnant then she is already being overwhelmed by hormone changes that hinder her from making good decisions. '
http://www.acpcpueblo.org/for-men.html

I live in the springs (focus on the family :() area, but interviewed a cpc in a nearby town. The woman who runs it asserts the last statement is true, and is medically backed. How more journalists arent investigating these shams is beyond me? Its freakin gold!!

'A woman becomes pregnant through sexual intercourse or other sexual activities when sperm from the man travels up through the woman's vagina and into her uterus'

They also dont seem to know how pregnancy happens. The sperm fertilizes the egg in the fallopian tubes, not in the uterus!

When my sister got pregnant at 17, she called me up because she needed help. She waited to get her abortion until my credit card arrived in the mail for her use, about 3-4 days. She also had to make arrangements for a ride, because she didn't want our parents to know at the time. That took more than 24 hours, and she didn't change her mind or become any less emotional. I doubt that 24 hours will help many women, but I can see it causing harm to quite a few for reasons already mentioned up-thread.

If she truly is pregnant then she is already being overwhelmed by hormone changes that hinder her from making good decisions.

I’ll never get this argument. Like others have said: If a woman too hormonal to chose to abort, why isn’t she too hormonal to chose adoption or to chose to raise the child? Why don't "we" withhold the newborn from mom for 24 hours after birth and give her a state mandated lecture on the downside of parenting, because, you know, "we" need to make sure she wants to raise it? I mean, I’d think that you’d be pretty damned emotional after giving birth. Why can’t they see how this is in no way an argument against legal abortions?

Gosh - of course - why didn't I see it before?!?

What the right wing really wants is just to educate women about sexual and reproductive choices. Because they might have been educated in an ineffective and damaging abstinence only program that never gave them then tools earlier in life to (possibly) avoid an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Ha! Could they be more hypocritical? If you really want to educate there is a better time and place to do so.

But Monika, then they would have to tell all the pure, innocent girls about abortion when only the whores need to know about that.

And learning about abortion turns girls into sluts.

/snark

Opps - silly me - I knew I must be missing something! But I am just a silly little woman so my emotions must have gotten in the way of thinking. Again!

/sarcasm

What is frightening is that the words you can delivery with irony, Geek, I can well imagine being spoken seriously.

Slightly off topic but everyone here might like this comic parodying abstinence only education:
http://cectic.com/091.html

We could do with the laugh I think.

liza, i totally feel for you. im a boston girl, and about 5 months ago i moved to waco, tx for irrelevant reasons.

my car is plastered with all kinds of stickers: pro-choice, pro revolutionary women, pro-peace, etc. ive got one that says "make love, not war" which is a particular favorite. the other day i was hunting for a parking spot and i saw a parked car with stickers saying "support life" and "life begins at conception and ends at planned parenthood" and the like. (which is even more amusing, since i volunteer at planned parenthood). i sooo wanted to park my car next to it and then hide in the bushes and wait for the owner of the car to come back and watch their reaction. alas, the student lot is always full and youre lucky to find any spot at all, let alone a specific one. oh well...

I can't claim to have ever had an abortion or even work in a clinic. what i can claim is to haved walked and supported family members and friends through the process. And over the years, they all have one thing in common--the question the possibilities of what could've been.

it was never my place to judge, criticize or persuade one way or the other which is why i was allowed to be in on the trips to the clinics and got the calls in the middle of the night about "am i doing the right thing" etc.

No one is saying women are "too emotional" to manage their own bodies.

but when someone tells me at age 35 that they still have doubts about a decision they made at age 17 forgive me for simply wondering if a little more information or time between action might make a difference in their piece of mind down the road.

Geek, you (and others) provided some good points about the harm the 24 hour delay could cause. You also managed to response without interpreting it as rhetorical snark.

I can see a trend in the comments that many people see this measure targeted at a large proportion of the women. I'm trying to make the point that perhaps its possible that a small amount of women who are genuinely undecided and approach an abortion clinic for information, be misled and pressured into an abortion by a profiteering clinic?

I'm trying to make the point that perhaps its possible that a small amount of women who are genuinely undecided and approach an abortion clinic for information, be misled and pressured into an abortion by a profiteering clinic?

Honestly, I don't think it's any more possible than anyone walking into any other kind of medical center. Abortion providers are doctors. They receive the same training, swear the same ethical oath, and went to the same med school as every other doctor in the country. They are no more about profit than any other doctor, and probably less so, considering their insurance costs and the extra costs of bodyguards that the average podiatrist doesn't pay.

The anti-choicers bring up this specter of the profiteering abortionist and the poor naive woman. I've never seen documented evidence of this occurring, and even if it does occur, how is it any different from any other medical malpractice? We already have laws that cover medical malpractice.

And if you say it's different because the woman is so emotional, or because (what you believe is) a life is at stake, then you've never had to handle a loved one's end of life care. When my father was hospitalized for the heart defect that eventually killed him, there were days when we agreed with everything the doctors told us to because we were so tired and overwhelmed and in shock and braindead. Why weren't there extra-special laws protecting us from making the wrong decisions?

Oh right, because not all next-of-kins are women and because cardio-care isnt caught up in a massive political debate that completely ignores reality.

h.william, I don't think it's possible to get through life without regret. I don't know anyone who would say they have no regrets from their teenage years.

Is abortion a regret that's harder to deal with? For some. Not for others. And then again, many women also regret going through with a pregnancy.

You also seem to assume that women don't get information without the state-written lecture and 24 hour waiting period. It's a doctor's appointment, which Avogadro just pointed out so well. It's not someplace you just stop in and order what you want and get it. There's also already been some waiting for the appointment.

Justice Kennedy brought up the specter of regret in the last Supreme Court decision about abortion and several feminist blogs addressed that better than I can.

Feministing

Feministing

I think my comment got eaten. Sorry if I'm repeating myself.

H.william, no one goes through life without regrets. I don't know anyone who would say they don't have regrets from the time they were teenagers.

Is regretting an abortion worse than others? For some, not for others. Some people regret having kids. Some people regret giving babies up for adoption. But people don't generally suggest the government get involved in those decisions.

You seem to assume that women who get abortions don't already get information. But as Avogadro pointed out so well, this is a medical procedure. It's not a drive through. A woman doesn't just walk in and order what she wants.

Justice Kennedy brought up the specter of regret in the last Supreme Court decision on abortion and several feminist blogs addressed it better than I can:

feministing

Feministe

I remember what it felt like when I found out that I was pregnant, and how the sheer PANIC increased with every day the further along I got. I think if I hadn't gotten the abortion I would have committed suicide - that's how bad it got. Imagining a baby inside me did nothing but freak me out.
The day I had the abortion something went wrong and I died on the table. They discovered that I would not have survived the pregnancy because of a heart defect. I didn't know that when I made the decision to abort, but it saved my life.
And, even not knowing about my heart condition I would make the same decision today. Yes, it's a baby. No, I don't ever want to carry one to term or raise it.

No one is saying women are "too emotional" to manage their own bodies.

Um, actually, that's what a shit-ton of anti-choicers are constantly saying.

The Law Fairy and Verite Bless have listed several good reasons why this law won't do good to women.

There are some states that only have one abortion clinic in the entire state. Consider Mississippi as an example. The only abortion clinic in Mississippi is in Jackson. I imagine there might be a few ob/gyn's in the state who could give you and abortion, but they don't work specifically as an abortion provider. If you are poor, don't have a car, work one job, or two jobs, you don't have a lot of time to get this procedure done before it starts jeopordizing your health. You may have even had to work for two or three weeks after finding out you were pregnant to save enough money for abortion. You've already had to think good and hard about this, because you've had to get someone to cover your shift and work, and had to have a friend with a car who can drive you all the way to Jackson and stay there with you for the day. Now, imagine that you have to make the trip to Jackson, but now you have to wait 24 hours, and the next day is the procedure, and you will have to miss work not one, but two days, while you are spending several weeks salary on the procedure. These are the type of women who are hurt by these laws. These laws push them farther along towards their due dates, make the abortion a more serious procedure.

Also, the "state-written lecture" is going to be chock full of bullshit information. I mean, the federal law outlawing intact dilation and extraction says that a late term abortion is "never necessary for the mother's health," when that is blatantly untrue, and that was on the federal level, not the state level. They will probably tell women that abortion increases their risk of breast cancer, will make them infertile, and emotionally loaded things like, you are taking a human life. Any state that imposes a lecture and a waiting period on a woman isn't thinking of the woman. They are trying to set up a roadblock, and they will tell the woman whatever misleading information they can think of to make her "choose life."

As far as wondering about regret, I bet there are many decisions people wonder about 17 years later. what if I had gone to that college in St. Louis, what if I had taken that job, what if my parents had never moved. With abortion, there is a lot of societal negativity about it. A lot of women probably have regret because people made them feel ashamed, people made them feel like they had chosen wrongly, or perhaps they did something that they thought their religion prohibited. If society didn't make women feel like they were wrong or bad for making the choice for abortion, fewer women would regret them.

Also, I imagine women who choose abortion have the same regrets as women who choose adoption, and they don't give you a lecture on why adoption might hurt you. They wonder what their child might have been like. They wonder whether or not they would have been smart, or had curly hair, or gone to a good school.

And, as people have pointed out, they don't tell you all the risks and problems of pregnancy when you get pregnant. They don't tell you the cost of raising a child for 18 years and saving money for college. Actually having a child is going to have a much bigger impact on your life than an abortion.

VeriteBlesse and Minervasp73 , thank you for your comments. After reading this post, and my rage had subsided a bit, I was immediately brought back to my abortion. I was young and in school and lucky enough at the time to have great health coverage provided by my father. Even with great health care (insurace covered everything) I still had to wait a week for an opening and every second that passed felt like a year. After my surgery SarahMC perfectly describes what I felt, joy and relief.

My next thought was how lucky I was to not only have health care, but that there was a local provider and I had scheduling freedom due to college. FemiDancer's comments are so critical and important. For many, the word "choice" can be so off-putting, especially when used as a synonym for reproductive freedom/justice.

I had choices, and that is not a reality for all women, particularly those of lower socio-economic status and my fellow sisters of color. It would be interesting if Rep. Sue Burmeister spoke to even a handful of women whose choice was taken away, and the life-altering impact it had, due to such policies as she is advocating for.

FemiDancer - The Atlanta-ites I was referring to are the spoiled rich kids from suburbs (read: Cobb County, the de-evolution capital of the world) who were at UGA. I apologize if it came off as a generalization of Atlanta. My experiences were Athens and Savannah. Savannah is a pit, basically. And Athens is alarmingly close-minded for a college town.

kissedadrunkgrlx, I bet your pain is worse than mine - you're right in Bush mecca (except if you use the word mecca there then to them you're probably a terrorist). You can't imagine how great it feels to NOT be there anymore.

Also, I hate that people refer to these as "unborn babies" or "unborn children." The correct terms are blastocyst, embryo, and fetus. In that order, though I don't recall the exact time frame for each one.

Liza: ::whew:: (that's supposed to be one of those relief sighs, haha) I was like, come on, Atlanta can't be that bad, we're the little blue spot in the sea of red. :) Yea, most of the people I've met who go to UGA are pretty conservative, and really liked country music.

Most of the time when I am discussing abortion in terms of debate, the shorthand is z/e/f, or zygote/embryo/fetus. The zygote is actually the first 46 chromosome cell, so that lasts for like, a day. :) Blastocyst/zygote is 0-14 days, however long it takes to implant. Embryo is 2-8 weeks, and fetus is 9 weeks and beyond.

when someone tells me at age 35 that they still have doubts about a decision they made at age 17

That's in the nature of getting older. I have no doubts about many of the decisions I made at 17--they were just plain wrong and stupid. But so what? I thought they were the right thing to do at the time, and hey, welcome to life, it's not always cut and dried. 24 hours would not have made the difference in deciding whether or not to sleep with the sleazebucket I slept with when I was 17 (to pick an example of a decision I regret)--years of therapy and growing older would have made the difference. Does that mean that 17-year-olds should be forced to take an official 24-hour waiting period before having sex? No, no it doesn't. It means that hey, people have regrets, worries, and mixed feelings about major decisions.

And over the years, they all have one thing in common--the question the possibilities of what could've been.

Well, ladies, h.williams has a point. All people, including men, should be required to undergo a 24-hour waiting period, complete with pamphlets and counseling, before being allowed to break up with their significant others, before being allowed to choose a college, before being allowed to accept a job offer, before being allowed to move away from home, before being allowed to go on vacation to London instead of Rome, etc. Otherwise they will always be haunted with the regret of what might have been, and we certainly can't have responsible, fully-grown adults who have to live with the consequences of their own decisions, regret or otherwise, now can we?