Ah yes, the women are too stupid to know they're having an abortion line of reasoning! Charming.

Well, duh! If those damn doctors would just explain what an abortion is and show pictures of the fetus, then no woman would ever want or need an abortion again! How dare those doctors take advanatage of woman - don't they know how stupid and vulnerable all women, especially prengant women, are? /sarcasm

Even though I hear this line of "reasoning" fairly regularly now, it never ceases to amaze me.

The language in this law would also require abortion providers to perform the ultrasound proceedure that provides the clearest image. In many cases, this would mean performing a vaginal ultrasound.

Imagine having to go through a medically unnecessary vaginal probe, even if you don't want to. Imagine a rape victim having to endure this. It's practically like rape by intrumentation, yes?

Women deserve better. They can make their own decisions without the help of the Oklahoma Right to Life.

Personally I liked the line:

"I guess those who are suing believe if women are given more information that it will affect their bottom line," Peterson said. "I think it is all about money."

Because abortion is so lucrative. Gah. head.desk.

Given more information? Like, what, that there's a fetus with a beating heart in her uterus? Um, isn't that why the woman is getting an abortion in the first place?

several years ago during the rise of the 3- and 4-D ultrasound "boutiques" to bond with "baby" (sorry for the alliteration, folks.) the FDA gave a statement against the use of ultrasounds for anything other than medical, diagnostic use. to use an ultrasound during pre-abortion treatment for anything other than getting an accurate idea of the age of gestation, singleton or multiple pregnancies, etc seems to be against FDA policy.

all patients have every right to access to their medical records if they choose. if a woman is interested in seeing her ultrasound - for curiosity's sake or closure (as some woman have requested the print out of their ultrasound after the abortion) - they can. there is no compelling reason for this additional law.

Why aren't the "pro-lifers" forcing the President and Congress to view the bodies of every person killed by a war that they have declared? Shouldn't all of us have to watch executions, since criminals are technically convicted by the people? And shouldn't cigarette manufacturers be forced to watch the agonizing last moments of a smoker dying of lung disease or cancer? Those things sound ridiculous until you consider that this law in Oklahoma amounts to the same thing.

I don't know if this is the law in VA, but when I had abortions here, I had to go through the ultrasound thing, presumably to confirm the pregnancy. By the time they did the ultrasound, I had already been given the sedation meds so I was not in the frame of mind to make a decision at that point.

Remember too that the people who actually work in the clinics and have to enforce such laws can present them any way that they want, and they are most probably not anti-abortionists. The ultrasound techs who did mine were discreet, did not make me look at the screen, and just gave me a "Yep, you're pregnant" and sent me on my way.

Tiffany:

Actually the Oklahoma law reads that the ultrasound screen must be turned toward the woman. (They anti's say that if the woman doesn't want to look she can avert her eyes). Additionally, the information that the ultrasound tech or doctor must give them is laid out in the bill it reads "the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the essense of cardiac activity, if repesnted or viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present or viewable."

Also, the law requires the ultrasound be done one hour prior to the proceedure and before any anesthesia or medication is administered.

Very disheartening....

Alright tulsa! Abortion service providers never cease to amaze me. They literally put their lives on the line everyday to provide women with safe reproductive health care. I'm sure, as doctors, they have a lot of options as to where they practice and what they specialize in, and I am so grateful these doctors are out there fighting for women's human rights.

Alright tulsa! Abortion service providers never cease to amaze me. They literally put their lives on the line everyday to provide women with safe reproductive health care. I'm sure, as doctors, they have a lot of options as to where they practice and what they specialize in, and I am so grateful these doctors are out there fighting for women's human rights.

They tried to pass a similar law in Florida. Luckily, the state legislature never got enough votes for it. Otherwise, the governor would have probably signed it.

I always loved the "embryo/fetus has a beating heart" line. It never occurs to these people that it has a beating heart because the pregnant woman has a beating heart. The embryo/fetus' beating heart is 100% dependent on that woman's beating heart.

Not only that, but they have to listen to a 12" extended dance remix of Seals & Crofts' Unborn Child

I have difficulty understanding the outrage about this.

It appears that feminists want to treat abortion/contraception/HPV vaccinations in a different way than almost any other medical procedure.

What exactly do feminists think MUST be disclosed before an abortion is permitted? Anything?

Do they have to be told that the procedure could have complications, or does that fall under the "women are too stupid to know" category?

For crying out loud, they make you acknowledge you could die having your wisdom teeth out.

Do they have to be told about possible side-effects that could effect their fertility, or does that fall under the "women are too stupid to know" category?

What constitutes informed consent on this issue?

Also, let's say that one woman changed her mind after viewing the ultrasound, why wouldn't feminists declare that a victory for choice? After all, if a woman chooses to change her mind, hasn't that information benefitted her in exercising her right to choose?

And, if this is such an important decision that no woman takes lightly, one would think that one would want as much information as possible.

By the way, I understand that many of you question the motivations for some of these laws. Leaving that issue aside, what MUST women be told before they have an abortion?

-Jut

Jut, I would expect the exact same things that would be told before any sort of medical procedure. The risks that the woman faces by having the procedure. Being told that "HEY, THERE'S A LIVING CREATURE INSIDE OF YOU" is not related to the risks that the woman faces. She KNOWS there's someone growing inside her uterus. That's why she's THERE. You don't go in to have a mole removed from your back and have to be informed, "By the way, see this mole? It's going to be cut off and thrown away. You're not going to have it anymore." (And no, I'm not comparing an abortion specifically to having a mole removed, kthx)

The whole informed-consent thing, I might add, provides a shield against liability for the medical care provider. A woman is so not going to sue an abortion provider for the loss of a child.

Alixana,

You're not suggesting the medical providers make us sign those forms to cover THEIR ass, are you? (snark)

Okay, but, at the same time, you would probably agree that this medical procedure is probably different than most, right?

This is a procedure that I imagine is often performed when the woman is scared or apprehensive. But feminists seem to oppose any kind of waiting period (which might prevent impulsive choices made out of fear (because, we don't want to suggest women are too hystericalto make a calm decision)); I understand such waiting periods are not uncommon before sterilization procedures are done. Why should abortion be different? Abortion and sterilization are both severe procedures with potential long-term consequences. They are much more serious than a mole removal, right? People rarely regret mole removals; I bet abortions are regretted at a far greater rate.

Thus, there are potential psychological side-effects with abortion that are analogous to ovarectomies, but not mole removal (to use your example). Should they be told that they might feel depressed or remorseful for the rest of their lives? Of course, it does not happen to everybody, but should they be told that that is a risk?

(Of course, I do not know if they are told that (maybe they are). I just remember that there was a recent study about psychological side-effects of abortion and the American Psychological Association was having a conniption about something to do with that.)

-Jut

Alixana,

Oh, and don't be too surprised if a woman does sue an abortion provider for losing her child. Another big issue here for feminists is parental notification. If a minor gets an abortion without parental consent, do not be surprised if the child ends up suing the provider, arguing she was not legally competent to consent.

-Jut

Also, let's say that one woman changed her mind after viewing the ultrasound, why wouldn't feminists declare that a victory for choice? After all, if a woman chooses to change her mind, hasn't that information benefitted her in exercising her right to choose?

What if a woman changed her mind about not having sex with a guy after seeing the gun in his pocket? That's coercion, not a victory for choice. You know that the only reason these ultrasounds are becoming mandatory is to try to force the woman to change her mind about having an abortion. Where's the law forcing women who decide to remain pregnant to view an ultrasound and telling them "That thing's only going to get bigger. And it hurts like hell squeezing that thing out of your vagina. And don't even get me started on the hardships of parenthood! You think your man's gonna help you? As if!" That's how you can tell the difference between anti-choice legislation and legislation that is reasonable. If the same doesn't go for women who decide to continue their pregnancies, it's anti-choice.

Jut, to take a slightly different angle to what you're saying - yes, this procedure is different from others because people are trying to prevent women from having it done. Therefore, it needs to be really, critically examined if these restrictions and warnings are truly for the benefit of the patient or just to throw a crimp in her plans.

I haven't heard anything about waiting periods for sterilizations, but A) I don't think I agree with those either because surely that decision is considered just as carefully as an abortion - I REALLY doubt people throw themselves willy-nilly into getting sterilized (I remember my mom telling me how pissed she was when the doctor asked her about 5 times after she had my younger sister if she was REALLY SURE she wanted her tubes cut and tied), and B) pregnancy is different because during the waiting period, the fetus ages and can cross that legal time limit for having an abotion.

There are all sorts of serious surgeries that can have emotional impact afterwards, not just abortion. People face choices about how to proceed, their doctor advise them as to the risks and outcomes of each choice, and they make the decision. Sometimes none of the choices are that desireable - a hospital has psych consults for good reason, but you don't see legislation being passed requiring doctors to tell people the emotional outcomes of chemotherapy vs. a masectomy. It's just trusted that a good doctor will provide the patient with what the patient needs to know.

Jut, I'm pretty sure (I have no personal experience so someone please correct me if I'm wrong) there is already essentially a waiting period. It's not like a woman finds out she is pregnant and gets an abortion an hour later. An appointment has to be made, she goes through counseling, there is a specific time period in which abortions can safely be performed, etc. To suggest that such a choice is ever impulsive and hysterical is to completely deny the reality of the situation. And yes, it may be made out of fear, but if you had something growing inside you that you distinctly did NOT WANT TO BE THERE, I don't think you could claim a lack of fear in the decision-making either.

"This is a procedure that I imagine is often performed when the woman is scared or apprehensive."

Well, yes. Which doesn't make it different from other operations, it makes it the same.

As for the waiting period-do you live in some super-efficient place where a woman can find out she's pregnant, schedule an abortion, and have said abortion all on the same day? Must be really nice, but the rest of us live places where these things can take a bit of time. So telling a woman 'I know you've been unable to think of anything else since you found out you were pregnant, but the law requires you to take another 24 hours? Kinda ridiculous. Especially when you consider that waiting periods require two trips to the doctor: one to start the waiting period, and another the next day for the abortion. Some of us are lucky enough to be allowed sick days, and don't have to travel hundreds and hundreds of miles to the nearest abortion provider. Others are not so lucky, and that's the point of waiting period legislation-to make it as difficult as possible poorer and less privileged women to access health services.

Jut, you're arguing based on anti-choice talking points and ideas. And those talking points rarely have any basis in reality. So, any argument starting with those points is going to be invalid, because it will be based on a false premise.

Alixana,
I see your point about viewing such efforts critically, but that raises another problematic issue.

Feminists do not seem to acknowledge that states have a right to regulate the medical profession. The fact that this medical procedure (and only this one, I believe) has been raised to the status of a constitutional right is what causes a lot of these problems. When you talk about laws trying to prevent procedures from being done, that is probably because the federal government has essentially usurped the regulation of the medical field in this one instance. usually, when a state does not want a procedure done, they simply say you can't do it. Like FGM, for example. Or, male circumcision. there are groups that want to outlaw that. And, they could be successful, because, ordinarily, states regulate the medical practice. Having had power taken away from them, they will try to get it back any way they can.
-Jut

Anyway (ignoring the troll), I think this is great. I believe the nearest abortion provider besides the one in Tulsa is in Fayetteville, which is 2 hours from Tulsa and obviously even further from more western parts of the state. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure that they only provide chemical abortion there, which doesn't seem like it'd be very workable if you have to drive over 2 hours to get back home.

The issue of informed consent is educating the woman on more than the fact that she's carrying a life. The issue is that women may not know how quickly the fetus advances to look like a baby.

I am pro-choice 100%. Women should have the right to abort up until viability as far as I'm concerned and even after that if the physical health of the mother would be compromised. But for myself, I don't think I could have an abortion after 3 1/2 months, knowing that it looks like a baby. At week 19, for example, the baby has eyelashes and fingernails!

I'd imagine that a LOT of women don't have access to abortions until well after 3 1/2 months and they should know what they're actually aborting.

Oh, and thanks for linking back to my blog, too.

JPlum,
I don't receive talking points from people. I have my own views and keep my own counsel when evaluating an issue.

However, I think it is simplistic to say that all of these issues are the result of the mind-set that "women are too stupid to make decisions."

That would be a false premise. The issue is far more complex than that. To simply dismiss the complexity does you a disservice.

wax ghost,
You say counseling is done. I don't know if that is the case, or whether it is mandatory, but assuming that is the case, on both points do you oppose it?

-Jut

Jut

I find it appalling that there are waiting periods for sterilization procedures as I believe that women know if they want to have any or more children and this kind of 'doctor knows best' attitude is rather insulting.

The waiting period for abortion has been implemented to hinder access to abortion (most women have to travel, if they are from poorer families, having to pay for a night in a hotel might be more money than they may be able to pay, plus the issue of taking another day off work, etc.).

Regarding regretting abortions, you might be interested in checking out:
imnotsorry.net
I am sure that there are an equal number of women who regret HAVING their babies.

@sjones1:

Actually, according to the data I have for my state, most women get abortions around three months or before (10-13 weeks is about average). And medical abortions are on the rise, and those are generally performed at eight weeks or before. Just FYI.

Also, just to inform those who aren't in the medical community, so we're clear, an ultrasound IS ROUTINELY performed before an abortion, to confirm fetal age. What this law wants to mandate is an extra, more invasive type of ultrasound, with a government-mandated script. None of that is in any way medically necessary. All the law really does, is make things more difficult for the clinic, and make the woman hang around in the clinic longer.

sjones1, when it comes to the issue of informed consent, every patient has the potential to want to know something that the average patient would not want or need to know in order to make their decision. It's not up to the government to set out a laundry list of what the doctor must tell all patients. If a doctor knows that the patient is worried about Issue X (which comes from conversations that anti-choice people don't seem to think doctors and patients have), then to reach the level of informed consent, the doctor has to provide that information.

The key here is that doctors and their patients aren't stupid. People don't go into medical prodecures, abortions or otherwise, without talking with their doctors and expressing their concerns and asking questions. Asking, "What does a woman need to know in order to make a fully educated choice?" is pretty much the same as asking, "What does a cancer/heart/broken bone patient need to know in order to choose his or her preferred treatment?"

khw,
I do not know that I find waiting periods for sterilization "appalling." I have known many guys who have had it done (after several kids) and they are fine with it. I do not like that doctors often require the spouse to be consulted (fair is fair, right?). Either way, it's not for me.

However, I know one couple (young) who both knew they did not want kids. They got married and changed their mind (after he had a vasectomy). Fortunately (I suppose), it was able to be reversed and they are now expecting.

For what it is worth.

-Jut

It seems pretty obvious that the pro-forced birth stance, while it may, on an individual level, sometimes be based on genuine concern, is on the most basic and intrinsic level born from a pure and absolute hatred of women and wish to punish them in all possible ways. The "women are too stupid/weak/controlled to make decisions" argument is just a smokescreen.

Anti-choice is anti-woman and those who would take away your right to control your reproduction are your enemies.

Ayla,
Need I say I disagree with you?
The issue is more complex than that.

If you believe that a fetus is a human life, and abortion is, therefore, murder, you can oppose abortion without hating women, just as you can oppose murder in general without being a misanthrope.

(I understand you probably do not agree with my premise above, but are you honestly saying that you can not agree that people could be motivated in such a way?)

-Jut

Jut Gory, the answer to your question is in my original comment here when I said "while it may, on an individual level, sometimes be based on genuine concern."

However, I believe the cultural factors which would bring someone to such a viewpoint are based in hatred for women. You could also say "the patriarchy" instead of "hatred for women" but they are functionally the same thing in this instance, and frankly, I think "the patriarchy" doesn't sound as evil and disgusting as it should for what it is and how it destroys our hope for true equality.

I'd imagine that a LOT of women don't have access to abortions until well after 3 1/2 months and they should know what they're actually aborting.

A) What makes you think those women don’t know what they are aborting? (this plays right into "women are too stupid to really understand what they are doing" meme)

B) Just because the thought of it icky to you, doesn’t mean other women needs to see pictures of the fetus. That’s why we call it “pro-choice.” It may not be the choice you’d make, but that doesn’t mean you get to make it harder for other women to make that choice for themselves.

C) Actually, the stats say that majority of abortions are in fact performed well before 3.5 months (at 10 weeks or before) and that most of the abortions preformed after that are for medical reasons.

I was just talking about this on Pandagon, actually, with regard to parental notification law/CA Prop 4:

The stated intent of the law is to protect women. The actual intent of the law is to restrict abortion rights. While you may or may not agree that waiting periods and ultrasounds are undue burdens (which would make them unconstitutional), the fact remains that proponents of these measures are lying in order to achieve ends that are arguably illegal.

Jut: On the other hand, I know a woman who had a tubal ligation because she knew she never wanted kids, and some time afterwards found hreself pregnant. How? The doctor, whom she'd trusted to do the operation right, had not completed the procedure because he thought she'd regret it one day, and the tubes had healed.
Why would opposition to murder make anyone a misanthrope? Murder victims don't by definition reside in anyone else's body.

I can't resist arguing with the troll....ehhhh

First let me say, Jut, go somewhere where people agree with you. Going to a feminist site to protest abortion rights is argumentative and ridiculous.

To tell feminists what we believe (which is really creating false beliefs and attributing them to us...it is called creating a straw man argument) is not going to convince anyone here that you are right. Believe it or not, this happens all the time and most of us have really considered these views and have had these arguments, repeatedly.

More than 90 to 95% of abortions happen in the first trimester, when the pregnancy does not involve a fetus. It involves an embryo. People do not agree that embryos or fetuses are human lives, and are not treated as such, medically or legally. It is not murder, and few if any people, including prominent anti choice movement members such as Sarah Palin, argue that it should be treated or prosecuted as murder.

Feminists certainly do NOT argue that medicine should not be regulated. While we are by no means homogenous in our beliefs, we agree with most major medical organizations that legal and safe abortions are integral to women's health. This is not a controversy in the medical community.

It is hardly a controversy among the populace - very few people believe abortion should be viewed as murder and outlawed. Abortion is the most common medical procedure in the country and 30-40% of women of reproductive age in this country have an abortion.

People who seek to limit and outlaw abortions at the state level are extremists who pride their ideology over the actual detrimental outcomes of such laws. People who come on feminists sites to argue about abortion are also much more interested in their own personal ideologies than life - prenatal or otherwise.

For the record, Jut, I work in an abortion clinic. Women have the right to see the ultrasound and take home a picture if they want to, and have the right to not look at it if they want to. Women tend to schedule their appt a week or so in advance, so there is your waiting period for you. They are informed of the risks, including infection, allergic reactions to drugs or medications, and death.

A major problem with pro-lifers is that they condemn clinics for what they imagine is going on, without bothering to find out what actually takes place.

What if I believe that each sperm contains a tiny fully-formed person that only develops after entering the woman's uterus? Therefore all male masturbation is murder.

Since that is similar to saying "If you believe that a fetus is a human life, ..." it's just as valid right?