The Chicago Tribune breaks down the twelve states that are all considering legislative restrictions that would require an ultrasound before a woman gets an abortion. (Or force a doctor to offer one.)
This reminds us of the whole "informed consent" absurdity that the antis love to push as some sort of right when it's nothing but completely belittling, implying that women don't understand their personal decisions (or at least they don't without the "guidance" of their friendly neighborhood anti-choice legislator). Cara says it well:
It all seems to be about the poor little woman who doesn't understand what it means to be pregnant, or who will surely have a change of heart once she sees a blurry, cloudy image that I've never been able to personally make out. It's about forcing government into the decisions of doctors, trumping science with ideology, and attempting to take away the privacy of women. Indeed, it's about taking the focus off of women and their rights and yet again putting the fetus, this time literally, right in the front and center of the picture.
More at Feministe.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Twelve States Consider Abortion Restrictions Via Ultrasound Technology.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11945
i thought they already performed ultrasounds to get an idea of the age of the fetus? it seems like no big deal to me as long as they don't FORCE the woman to look at the screen or force her to get a copy of the sonogram.
Well, some of them do require that the woman look at the ultrasound image and listen to the heartbeat. At least one state forces the doctor to tell the woman that the embryo is a unique human being and that the relationship with her pregnancy is protected by the Constitution (The former statement is, at best, an opinion based on religion rather than science. The latter statement is true, thanks to Roe v. Wade).
The only point of these ultrasound mandates is to guilt-trip the woman into making a decision that's best for ideologues rather than herself. Nobody is calling for women who choose to give birth to look at ultrasounds and be told that it's only going to get more painful, emotional, and expensive from here and that there's still time to have an abortion. That's how you can tell it's forc-birth legislation. They would never even think of doing this for women who decide to remain pregnant, because they already think these women are making the right decision and don't need to be conned.
yeah i'm an idiot, i didn't realize there was a link that broke down each state and what is required.
"-- Indiana: A woman would be required to view an ultrasound at least 18 hours before an abortion, hear the fetal heartbeat and receive a copy of the ultrasound image. "
that is bullshit.
So, if you're deaf or blind, what happens?
Some of those laws offer or require the woman to listen to the "fetal heartbeat," which is ridiculous. The embryo's or fetus' heartbeat isn't an act of magic. It's there because the pregnant woman's heart is beating! She doesn't need the embryo's or fetus' heart to beat in order for her to keep living. The embryo or fetus depends on her heartbeat 100%. Why is it so difficult for these antis to realize that, surprise, the woman's in control here? The embryo's or fetus' life depends on her, not the other way around.
I was very surprised not to see my home state of NC on that list of 12 states, but I'm sure they're on their way.
And WTF is this nonsense about "displaying the images in a manner that the pregnant woman may view them" ?!? I mean it's all nonsense but this really got me. How exactly are they displaying the ultrasound?
Even the language is ridiculous; the patient is a "pregnant woman." Not a patient (which would be proper LEGAL terms), but a "pregnant woman."
i think NC already does that.
my best friend in highschool had an abortion and they gave her an ultrasound and even showed her the screen. of course she had no idea what she was looking at anyway, so it had no affect on her decision. i don't know, maybe it was just that clinic...
I had two abortions in the great state of NC. The fist time, in my early twenties, they performed the ultrasound without really telling me what was going on. The monitor was right in my eyesight and I didn't realize what was going on until I already saw the fetus on the monitor. It was very traumatizing for me. In my early thirties I had another abortion at a different (and nicer) clinic. I specifically told them I didn't want to see the ultrasound and they said that was fine. However, they didn't do anything to help prevent me from seeing it, I just turned my head and turned back when it was over.
Ugh. I had an abortion in CA when I was 18, and they didn't show me the ultrasound, but the tech had tears in her eyes while she was doing it. Then she gave me my chart (which had a picture of the fetus in it) and told me that I didn't have to look, but I had to take it in the waiting room with me. I ended up looking, and I still got the abortion - it just sucked a little more.
I don't honestly know that I would have gone through with it if I had been forced to stew over that for 18 hours. I REALLY hope these don't pass.
I want to mention, when I was 18 I was not yet a feminist and was just coming out of my Catholic upbringing, so I wouldn't have seen a law like this one as condescending and patriarchal. I probably wouldn't have thought about the law itself much, and just would have suffered more guilt on top of what I was already feeling.
Hypothetically, I wonder what people would think of a program to require all pregnant women to have a meeting with a doctor when they realize they're pregnant and discuss what will happen if they get an abortion and what will happen if htey don't.
I think it bothers me more that sometimes they are required to do an ultrasound even if its not medically necessary. (In some cases it might be necessary to determine the age of the fetus or whatever, but I don't think they always have to do one when you want an abortion). That means they're forcing an unnecessary medical procedure which is a waste of time and money. Also in many cases an ultrasound early in the pregnancy has to be done vaginally instead of on the stomach, which means its forcing an unnecessary and INVASIVE medical procedure.
If they are doing the ultrasound anyway I don't care quite as much about whether they give you the picture or not. Its condescending and stupid, but its easy to just not look at it. Its not so easy to ignore something being unnecessarily inserted into your vagina.
If legislators really want to prevent abortions, why aren't they clamoring for more funding for women's clinics? Cheap and accessible contraception? Comprehensive sex education? Oh, that's right . . . these things would give women control of their bodies! Heaven knows, we can't have that!
::sighs::
The Texas rule specifically is terrifying.
yeah, where they have to explain the ultrasound?
"Well see this? That's the foot and there's the head. Do you still want to do this?"
Bullshit. Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy and these laws should be shot down.
And I would point to my head and say "This is where my brain is, and I love to use it" Then, I'd point to my ass and say "Kiss it, fuckface."
By forcing the procedure on women, it effectively takes away their constitutional right to choose their medical care.
In a hospital, you can refuse any treatment and still get other treatments. If these laws pass, you MUST get an ultra sound to get the abortion.
It will also effectively limit low-income women's access to abortion because an ultra sound will add $100-$250 to the cost of the abortion.
I worked in an abortion clinic. We did ultrasounds purely for the age of the pregnancy. (Medical abortion is limited to very pregnancy.) I don't think states should require an ultrasound, but I fail to see why an ultrasound wouldn't be performed prior to the abortion.
Forcing the patient to view the ultrasound is ridiculous. It really honestly doesn't look like anything, for one. And secondly, if the patient really wants to see, she can just ask.
I completely agree with you. I don't see why you wouldn't do an ultrasound for the sake of the woman's health as well. When I got mine, they found a dark spot and sent me to the emergency room (since they had better equipment) to make sure it wasn't an ectopic pregnancy (outside the uterus). It turns out it was just a cyst, but if it had been an ectopic pregnancy, the abortion pill could have killed me, or done some serious damage. So while the whole emergency room experience was a pain in the ass (although shout-out to Dr. What'shisname for being AWESOMELY understanding and supportive about my decision, and a Feminist Friday Fuck You to the stupid med student who kept trying to make me feel bad)I'm glad they did the ultrasound so that I was safe and healthy.
I failed to mention that I do think all of these regulations are absolutely absurd (listing to hearbeat etc) but I feel ultrasounds benefit the woman's health as well.
Anti-choicers don't believe women are capable of asking a question.
I must be a cold hearted bitch because as a woman who have several children and a woman who also had an abortion, ultra sound pictures simply do not move me.AT.ALL. An acorn is not an oak tree.It has the potential to be. I understand that some may not feel the same way as I do,but an 8 week embryo is not the same as a 8 year old child.
This is just a ploy to DELAY and to F*CK with a woman's emotions.I doubt very much that it would change a woman's mind. The ultrasound is not being used to stop a woman from having an abortion , it is being used as a method to humiliate and make women feel shame for wanting to have one.
This. Forwards and backwards, this.
At first I was surprised not to see UT on that list as this state is usually included in any kind of horrible legislation like this, but maybe they didn't get the memo.
So, I decided to search to see if UT was already doing something like this and found this definition which has an "informed consent" section as well as making the only legal abortions "Before 20 weeks, abortion is necessary to save mother's life or health, if woman was raped or incest committed, or child has grave defects; after 20 weeks, necessary to preserve health, life of mother or if child would be born with grave defects"
I really can't wait to graduate and leave this state. 1 more year.
Are you saying that in UT abortion is illegal in other circumstances? I thought it was protected federally by Roe v. Wade? Or is this one of those "if Roe v Wade is overturned this law will take effect" laws?
I don't have it in front of me, but I'm pretty sure Roe v. Wade puts into effect minimum requirements for abortion laws, like they must be legal in the first trimester, in cases of rape or incest, and to preserve the health and life of the woman. So it looks like Utah has the minimum laws required to be in line with Roe v. Wade and the U.S. Constitution.
I am really intrigued by the states that want to require a woman to listen to the heartbeat. I am 6 months pregnant, and my midwife couldn't get a fetal heartbeat until I was four months pregnant. That really freaked me out at first, but then I started talking to other women I know and found that it's very common that a heartbeat be difficult to hear. My partner's mom couldn't hear a heartbeat until 5 1/2 months on all 3 of her kids. So my question is, if the law requires women to hear the heartbeat before getting an abortion, and the doctor can't find a heartbeat, will they still be allowed to get an abortion? Or will they have to wait until a heartbeat is audible? And if they have to wait, they may have to wait beyond the legal time period for obtaining an abortion. This is just pure speculation, but could this be used as a way to prevent a woman from even getting an abortion? Scary.
On a side note, I have always been pro choice, and since I got pregnant I have been very frustrated that many of the anti choice people in my life assume that I am going to change my mind. It is incredibly frustrating. Why would I become anti choice because I CHOSE to have a baby? So I went to the local print shop and ordered a maternity shirt that say's Pro Choice in big letters right on my baby bump. It made me feel better.
kind of off topic, but i HATE hate hate that. i have a daughter and people always say upon finding out i'm pro choice "how can you be pro choice when you have a child". or "how can you look at your daughter and think that abortion is okay?"
it's pretty simple actually :O
I find this really interesting because feminists, myself including, constantly talk about how women are not given the right information about their bodies and choices. Yet here you are, claiming it's insulting that they're implying we might not know about our bodies and choices. I think women should have the option to learn more about their pregnancy, their options, the procedures, etc. I don't think it should be forced, but an option is fine for me.
options and information are always great! but forcing someone that doesn't want to, to hear a possibly non existent heartbeat or see a cloudy ultrasound screen is wrong.
Except it is being forced. And what's being forced is distorted thinking and intimidation. So you have no point.
forcing a doctor to offer one is hardly forcing a woman to take him up on that offer. my point stands.
No, no, no. Some of those laws force the woman to look at the ultrasound image.
I was responding to "(Or force a doctor to offer one.)" in the original article...
What is this? What do these people want from us? I mean got dammnit. I dont understand. What do they think. So...women who are pregnant that want an abortion just stroll around looking for an abortion one day and go into a clinic, plop down 50 cents and get one then leave. Women know what they are doing. If hearing a heartbeat and seeing the actual blob of fetus on the screen will change your mind. CHANGE the decision that you made to get an abortion, your reasoning may have been flawed or possibly forced in the first place. I dont know how it is for others but I know women who get abortions because they need them not because they dont know that theirs a fetus in there with a heartbeat. I think thats pretty general knowledge.
But you know what...I take that back. Some young women that may feel guilty about getting abortions may be forced to do this and get a nurse or doctor that forces their religion on them and they may just change their mind. I guess these right wing crazies know exactly what their doing...
I just want to say that I really appreciate the women that have commented on their own abortions here. It's a really brave thing to do EVEN relying on the anonymity of the internet and posting names. It also helps normalize the procedure and really build a community of women that have used this medical procedure, at least for me. so from me, at least, thank you for being so open and generous.
Here in Australia, we have to have an ultrasound before we have an abortion (at least I did). From memory, that was over 72 hours before I had the procedure. They asked me if I wanted a copy, and I said no, and the later on I went back to get one, because I didn't look at it, and was curious as to what it had looked like.
It looked like a white mark.
But, nevertheless, I was glad to have the choice, later. They needed to test how long I'd been pregnant for, and how many different drugs to give me. But it did fuck me up a little bit.
I had no picketers though, nobody telling me I was evil - I was really very lucky. I wish everyone could have an experience like mine if they had to have an abortion.
I always wondered why feminists are SO afraid of a woman seeing the ultrasound.
Why are you so against it? If she's resolute in her decision, what is there to worry about?
All it does is make you sound as though you're worried that if she sees the image, she might decide not to abort.
It sounds like you're not so much pro-choice, as you are pro-abortion, and you're scared of one less abortion.
See my whole reply below, but just in reply to this post:
Feminists are not "afraid" of this intervention. Medical interventions need to be medically justified. It is up to the people pushing to force a new procedure on people to justify the intervention, not the other way around.
Just because a minority of people want to reduce abortions by any means necessary except for increasing access to contraception, improved accurate sex ed in schools, and financial support for poor mothers, does not mean that these interventions are appropriate.
Can you imagine if every pregnant mother was forced to have a scripted counseling session with someone who tried to talk them into terminating? With "informed consent" about the complications of pregnancy and childbirth, how carrying a pregnancy to term is medically less safe than having a first trimester abortion, post partum depression, divorce in the first two years after having a baby, how most studies show parents are unhappier than non parents? Ridiculous.
I think the issue is that some women are already heartbroken enough getting the abortion. They don't need to listen to the heartbeat, have the head & fingers & toes pointed out. Women should have the ultrasound if they want to. But why force it on them? As long as we're on that track, why not create some kind of "abortion document" wherein the mother has to name the fetus before she terminates it?
Here is a great position statement from Guttmacher Institute on ultrasound and abortion(pdf).
Ultrasound is not medically required for dating first trimester pregnancies that are slated for abortion. 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester. (By the way, the pregnancy is not a "fetus" yet at this point, either, it's an embryo, but that's my own pet peeve).
Not only that, but up until at least eight weeks or more, the only way to get an accurate view of the embryo is with a vaginal ultrasound. Even if the clinic was going to perform ultrasound for dating, most would not choose to use the much more invasive vaginal ultrasound (affectionately referred to as a "dildocam" by many experienced with the procedure). Many of these ultrasound laws require getting the "most accurate picture", which would require a vaginal ultrasound regardless of a total lack of medical necessity in an abortion that early in pregnancy.
Also, about half of all women who get abortions are already parents. They know what's in there. (Non parent women do too, but if you have given birth, there should be no question you are quite familiar with what is going on inside during a pregnancy and don't need a tutorial by ultrasound.) Don't even get me started on the requirements that the practitioner read from a script, including comments on it being a unique human life and a description of the heart tones.
Many of the requirements also legislate a waiting period (mentioned above) and also require that the practitioner performing the abortion be a doctor, even in some cases the same doctor who performs the abortion, not an ultrasound technician. Many clinics have doctors that only work one day a week, some even fly in from other states to do so. These ultrasound requirements with waiting periods target these situations, and also unfairly affect poor women who cannot afford to take two days off in a row, and women who live far from a clinic (most women in nonurban settings) who will have to get a hotel room to stay overnight.
And, untouchable face, why do it? Why institute an intervention? It is not up to the people who point out that it is not medically warranted and abusive to defend the procedure, it is up to the people who want to force the intervention to prove it is warranted.
You know what I find irreconcilable? The fact that these conservatives like to scream bloody murder when big-old-bad-government tries to legislate anything about business, gun control, or anything else to do with their lives. But, when it comes to my body, they're all over it. Then they're right in there, eager to legislate and force on the rest of us, their religious beliefs. It's a disconnect that I thoroughly fail to understand.
I don't want children. As in EVER. I'm 31. I ain't changing my mind. It's the been the same for pretty much as long as I can remember. It could have something to do with the fact that I grew up in a ghetto in abject poverty and I saw the burden placed upon people to feed and clothe their children, much less send them to college. I am the first person in my family to get a college degree.
So, I ask these pro-lifers why they think they can dare to have the GOVERNMENT legislate my personal life? I'm not their religion, I don't believe in their sky god nor do I believe that life begins at conception. And on that note, the funny thing, the thing that amuses the ever loving hell out of me the most, is that the people who wrote the Bible didn't believe that life began at conception either. They believed that life began when the baby drew it's first BREATH. And if anyone here doubts that, all they need to do is crack open a Bible:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]." --Exodus 21
If they had considered the embryo or fetus a life, the penalty would have been death, as it's a life for a life. But they didn't consider it a life, so the penalty was monetary.
Again I ask as always, do these Christians actually *read* this book they claim is the word of their god or do they just swallow all the crap their pastors tell them about it hook, line and sinker? Critical thinking skills are sorely lacking in this world.