It seems that trying to force women to view ultrasounds - because we're too stupid to know that when you get an abortion, you get an abortion - just isn't enough for some folks. Now anti-choicers want to decide where women view that ultrasound.
Seven S.C. House lawmakers have prefiled a bill that would require women seeking abortions to be given a list of clinics and other facilities that provide free ultrasounds. That list could include pregnancy crisis centers -- many run by antiabortion groups -- that actively discourage abortion and encourage women to choose other alternatives.The bill expands upon the law the General Assembly passed this year that requires abortion providers to give women seeking an abortion the option of viewing an ultrasound beforehand. (Emphasis mine)
Lovely. South Carolina is terrible on reproductive justice issues in general (91 percent of the state's counties have no abortion provider and there are a ton of restrictions on access to abortion) so I guess this should come as no surprise. But it still irritates the shit out of me.
Related: The politics of "informed consent"
Mandatory ultrasounds and "informed consent"
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: South Carolina may expand ultrasound law.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11259
This seems terribly confusing and a big waste of taxpayer time and money.
So, say I'm getting an abortion in South Carolina, where the law says I have to have an ultrasound (which I can choose to view or not) before the procedure. I go to my appointment - wouldn't the doctor just do the ultrasound there, and then perform the procedure once I've consented? Why and when would patients get a list of other places to get an ultrasound?
I'm guessing if I find this confusing and I am in no way threatened with a situation where I would need an abortion at this moment, then it would be 10x worse if DID need one ASAP.
This is either magical anti-choice logic or I am missing something key.
The key thing that I think you're missing is that anti-choice legislation isn't supposed to make sense. That's the whole point. Anti-choicers want to make laws and pregnancy centers that deliberately confuse women about their rights and their health.
The majority of women seeking abortions have ultrasounds beforehand.
However, requiring that women be given a list of where to go for an ultrasound, when I'd guess that the vast majority of abortion facilities already provide that service, is needless and serves no legitimate purpose. The only purpose it serves is to delay a woman from getting the procedure and to possibly subject her to anti-abortion activists who will try and talk her out of it.
How is that legal? For what other medical procedure would legislators come up with such shenanigans? This legislation exists for no other purpose than to hinder women trying to access abortion, for no legitimate medical reason.
I am curious if the employee that receive federal funds had the right to protest this under the new conscious clause?
If a federal employee said that it was against his conscious to provided lies and distortion to his client by refering them to an anti birth control clinic, those the new federal guideline covered him?
I am curious if the employee that receive federal funds had the right to protest this under the new conscious clause?
If a federal employee said that it was against his conscious to provided lies and distortion to his client by refering them to an anti birth control clinic, those the new federal guideline covered him?
I ask the same question on one of Feministing post "Bush's 'Right of Conscience' rule is unconscionable".
I see why not. Anti- choice advocates are not the only people who have "morals" and I for one cannot in good conscience deny a woman Birth control, information on abortion and family planning or forcing a woman to look at an ultra sound if she does not want to?
My morals might differ from anti-choicers,but their MY morals and they are covered under this bullshit law as well.
Fight fire with fire.
It seems the case, as in other states, that this maneuver is a time-lengthening strategy. For instance, how many times have you gone to the doctor only be be asked to return for an additional appointment weeks later because "tech is on vacation" or "no available appointments" etc. I'm currently receiving prenatal care at a large clinic and I'm amazed at how many times I must return to the office only to wait for a simple blood test or to pee in a cup. In this case, anti-abortion zealots can draw this process out so that the time runs out for the woman to have a legal and safe abortion. What if the "list" of clinics are all full up and she only has 4 weeks left? Besides the obvious ethical issues that arise when a state begins using medical procedures as coercive tools, I really think that if enacted, it would be the time issue that would really hurt women the most. (Oh, and not having an abortion provider within 150 miles!)
As someone who has made the choice to have a baby and recently SEEN my (then 12 week) fetus up on screen, complete with little foot, I can attest to how coercive being made to view an ultrasound could be. This is a really awful piece of legislation and I fear other states might follow suit.
What if the "list" of clinics are all full up and she only has 4 weeks left? Besides the obvious ethical issues that arise when a state begins using medical procedures as coercive tools, I really think that if enacted, it would be the time issue that would really hurt women the most. (Oh, and not having an abortion provider within 150 miles!)
Absolutely. The crisis pregnancy centers, who already have a gripe about abortion in the first place, and who don't have to even provide the ultrasound if it's going to come before an abortion under new federal law, are likely to make sure that this process is prolonged. "Oh, you're here to get a free ultrasound because you want an abortion? I'm sorry, but I wouldn't be able to deal with my conscience if I helped you get that abortion by providing you an ultrasound. Try another state." And once again, this law disproportionately affects poor women, since they're more likely to need abortion and the free ultrasound.
an ultrasound is a medical device for making medical diagnoses. stop. do not pass go. i had one ultrasound when with my first child and while the nurse/technician did all the measurements and whatnot, Mr. MD still needed to come in, look himself and make the final report. that kinda stuff takes money.
any shitty CPC that can schlock together the money to buy a machine should be charged with practicing medicine without a license.
an ultrasound is a medical device for making medical diagnoses. stop. do not pass go. i had one ultrasound when with my first child and while the nurse/technician did all the measurements and whatnot, Mr. MD still needed to come in, look himself and make the final report. that kinda stuff takes money.
any shitty CPC that can schlock together the money to buy a machine should be charged with practicing medicine without a license.
Gah, this makes no sense. For one, women know that being pregnant means there's a fetus blob in their uterus. It's not like they're going to be surprised or something. And as other comments pointed out, this is just going to delay the abortion process which means women will be having abortions later into the pregnancy, which is also something pro-lifers get pissy about. No sense!
Are the women required to go somewhere else for an ultrasound, or do they just have to give them the list? If the latter ,it seems like it would go like this: "By law we have to give you this list of places that will do ultrasounds. But we can also do one right here right now."
The list is of places that will do the ultrasound for free. Women seeking abortion don't have to go to any one of those places, but "it's free" is a pretty convincing slogan. The bad thing is that the women who go for the free ultrasound will also be guilt-tripped out of making their own decision.
The anti-choice extremists have nothing better to do. I live in Williston in the western portion of South Carolina and I am outraged over this proposal. The very same people who always say that they are for less government are always the ones who want to have the government control women's lives.
I will be looking at the state legislature and I will call out those who vote in favor of this blatantly intrusive bill.