With 24 states requiring women to either get "counseling" or a 24-hour waiting period before they have an abortion, the Guttmacher Institute has released a study showing that these mandates actually do very little to effect the birth and abortion rates. In fact, women who receive counseling don't change their mind. What it does do is decrease access to abortion care:
Currently, 24 states require women to wait, usually for 24 hours, between an initial counseling session and the abortion procedure. The laws in seven of these states require in-person counseling at least 18-24 hours prior to the procedure. Multiple studies of such a law in Mississippi have found that the requirement was associated with a decline in the state's abortion rates, an increase in the number of residents going out of state for an abortion, and delays in accessing abortion services. These findings suggest that an in-person counseling requirement places an additional burden on some women by forcing them to take more time off from work, arrange child care or stay away from home overnight when the distance to the clinic is great. (Emphasis mine)
As Lynn Harris at Broadsheet smartly calls them "time outs," it really gets to the core of what this "informed consent" bullshit is about - treating grown women like children regarding on their personal decisions, and, like Kelli Conlin of NARAL Pro-Choice New York says, "reinforce[s] the myth that abortion is a decision that women take lightly."
Between being given "time outs" and playing the waiting game, it's obvious that these laws do nothing but degrade and infantalize women, while straight up impeding abortion access - not helping them make "better decisions."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: You want an abortion? Grounded! .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13728
My consitutional law professor also pointed out the disproportionate effect these waiting periods have on poor women, many of whom have to travel long distances to the nearest provider. Due to the 24 hour waiting period, they are then forced to find a place to stay overnight and lose a day of pay and/or find a full day of childcare.
I'm sure the people responsible for these laws know this.
I'm sure the people responsible for these laws know this.
Exactly. And they are very comfortable telling outright lies about their motives because, in their view, their lies save "babies".
As of now, they've lost the battle to overturn Roe, so instead they've resorted to putting so many obstacles in place that abortion might as well be illegal.
They also know that because these restrictions place an undue burden on poor women, so some will simply choose not to have an abortion, at least not a safe one.
I'd be very interested to see the statistics regarding how many of the these women have been injured or died attempting home abortions in areas where restrictions like this are in place.
Hmm...this reminds me of Susan Wicklund's book This Common Secret. She said that the restrictions placed on abortion actual add an additional burden to women. This didn't click for me until I learned of all the restrictions on access to abortion.
In the media and in mainstream culture your told about Roe v. Wade and the RIGHT to an abortion but we never discuss ACCESS to abortion, which I feel is essential if we're going to have that right.
Also, I think that these restrictive laws hurt poor women and women of color more than any other group in this nation. I am tired of politicians playing politics with this issue. It just shows how out of touch many of them really are.
Cuz think about it...we have the Hyde amendment which prohibits federal funding for abortion, then we have 87% of U.S. counties that don't have an abortion provider (mostly because abortion providers have been marginalized in the medical community or they've been intimated by pro-life activists and politicians), then add the state by state 1st trimester restrictions that treats women like they're children and incapacitated, and now 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion are ILLEGAL. WTF! It appears that the RIGHT to abortion no longer matters in a way...of course it matters but what is a right if you cannot access that right?
I just read a poll that said that the majority of Americans are now pro-life...yes I question the criterion however that's what is being projected to the general public.
IDK, I feel like we're losing this war and its saddening...
I thought I read somewhere that most Americans wanted to keep abortion legal, but agree with various restrictions, like not after a certain time, and waiting periods and other such shit.
I do know that if you really press people who say they are “pro-life” about it, they come to a paradox. See, if you really truly believe that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person, with all the rights thereof, then you logically have to be against abortion even in cases of rape or incest. The vast majority of “pro-life” people feel very uncomfortable with that and say they want women to have to option in those cases. Illogical!! That’s one of the reasons that the GOP didn’t get into it with Plain’s super hard-core (but logical) opinions about abortion access. She doesn’t believe in abortion in cases of rape or incest. I don't belive that most people who say they are "pro-life" really know what that means.
And let's not forget that many embryos are aborted by the mother's body and never brought to term. If you really truly honestly believe that every zygote/fetus/etc. has a soul, then saving these should be just as much of a priority as saving those where the mother gets an abortion.
I used to think that it was useless to reason with pro-life people because if they honestly believed the fetus had a soul, of *course* they would act the way they did. Then I realised that actually? No, they wouldn't.
That is one thing that is disturbing about the pro-life rhetoric. Would a mother that has a miscarriage be accused manslaughter? After all, it was her body's 'fault' that the little 'soul' wasn't carried to term...
Gah. My mother had as many miscarriages as she had successful pregnancies. Should I mourn those lost pregnancies as lost siblings?
Yeah, that drives me nuts. I actually have more respect for Palin because of that (although that's sort of like saying that you can pick up a little bit of water if you scrape the bottom of the barrel hard enough). It's either a life or it's not, it can't be a life, unless the conception was due to rape or incest, in which case political convenience makes it suddenly not a life.
(If it's not clear, I am pro-choice; I just find the "abortion only in case of rape or incest" position incredibly hypocritical).
This might be a huge generalization, but I wonder if there's any huge correlation between people who dislike waiting periods for gun ownership and people who favor waiting periods for abortion?
I totally subscribe to this generalization.
I don't want to give either issue any sense of equivalency or relativity, but it just seems like what people get angry about for waiting periods with handguns, they seem to fully support with abortion. It's just an odd thing that I thought of.
I, by the way, completely support the handgun waiting period. And oppose this one. And do it without any jitters or schisms in my conscience.
But...that's what they're for. Is this a huge surprise to anyone? Of course we need the hard data to prove that the waiting periods do nothing but infantalize women and impede their rights, maybe it will help from getting waiting periods imposed on more states. But I'm not holding my breath. Women know they're getting an abortion when they're getting an abortion, and a lot of people seem to want to do their best to punish them for it.
I would like to read about the proposed effect this 'debate' has upon our generation of women (im 23) and future generations of girls and women.
What concerns me is that the language, whether in favor or against the free choice debate is still degrading to women. It perpetuates the message that women still cannot think for themselves. It subconciously forces women to make a decision then and there about what is right. Essentially a huge argument, nationwide, that is used for political gains in most cases but is not doing anything to actually change the current way of things.
No arguments about the right to 'give life' whenever a man chooses to wear a condom have subconciously contributed to the notion that men dont need this permission or debate for them made. It is and always has been implied that "if a man has access to the information about risks in not wearing condom, he can make his own decision in this matter".
lots of work still still needs to be done,
sorry for the rant
s
What exactly are these compulsory counseling periods *for*?
I mean, of course they should be *offered* for women who haven't yet made the decision, but (speaking from experience) when you've absolutely decided you don't want to have a baby, what are you being counseled about? Changing your mind?
"Perhaps you're wrong - really, you do want a baby, your immature (and, therefore, of course, totally ready to bring up a child!) mind just hasn't realised it yet."
Erm... No. I don't think so.
"Counseling" wouldn't have done diddly squat for me, except made me wait longer and feel stressed for longer wanting to get the thing out of me.
And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
If you don't want to have a baby, and you're totally sure you don't want to have a baby, and you know that the right thing to do for you is to make it go away, how is counseling before the abortion going to do anything except make you feel like you *should* be having doubts, be feeling guilty, be considering other avenues, when what you really need is support and encouragement and people to help you get what you need.
(This is not, of course, to devalue the experiences of women who do find the decision difficult, and do need someone to help them through it, but surely in that case counseling could be offered to the woman as and when she needs it.)
Sorry if that comes across a little bristly, I just get really sick of being expected to feel so sorry for getting rid of a little clump of cells that was making me feel sick and horrible and out of control.
If that clump of cells wasn't a foetus, but a cancer, no one would accuse me of being "evil" for wanting it gone.
And no. The abortion didn't make me feel bad.
Rape, yes. Abortion, no. Just very very relieved.
Amen sister. Most aborted embryos don't even have 1% of the self-awareness or capacity to feel pain that a adult cow or pig or chicken does. But how many people are pushing for a 24 hour waiting period to buy a steak?
To quote my mother, "Why not have a 24-hour waiting period on sex?" It makes about as much sense as a waiting period on abortions, non?
What really gets my goat is the dual nature of the abortion debate. If we, as a nation, are going to have abortion legal, have it be 100% legal. Don't play with restrictions to make it legal but difficult. If we're going to make it illegal, make it illegal.
Somehow, I feel that if these restrictions were on any other procedure (appendectomies, perhaps?), it would be considered ridiculous. But because a uterus is involved, it's considered public property. Bullshit.
Actually I'm sure that many social conservatives would love to introduce a "cooling off period" before sex if they could.
The thing is, the Supreme Court has recognized that things like informed consent and 24-hour waiting periods may be burdens on women seeking to get an abortion, but has found that they are not "substantial obstacles" that cause an "undue burden" on women. The key being undue burden. The Court has found that something like a requirement that the husband sign off on the abortion is an "undue burden" (not sure about husband notification, though), but like I said not 24-hour waiting periods or even parental notification (with a judicial bypass) for minors. See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a 1992 case and O'Connor wrote the opinion.
So people realize that these are burdens, they just don't think that they burden women enough to be considered serious impediments to getting an abortion.
That's not to say that I agree (because I don't), but I'm saying that people have heard the arguments and, for lack of a better phrase, don't really care.
Well any of the given pro-life initiatives might not impose THAT undue of a burden, but when you all add them up, it's like death by a thousand cuts.
No public funding for abortion. Pro-life crazies harassing abortion clinics. All these laws: mandatory counseling, waiting periods, parental notification.
Any one of these by themselves could be worked around. But add them all together and you get an EXTREMELY undue burden that seriously restricts the right of women to get an abortion. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
yeah, they don't care becouse the people making these laws and upholding these laws are the same people who can fly their daughters to Europe for a little vacation if abortion was ever made illegal!
say it with me now: “Privilege!”
I've been thinking of a tasteful way to say this of late, but I think of gun rights the way some think about abortion rights.
With the obvious difference that I will accept some restrictions on availability of firearms (despite any interpretation of the Constitution) to prevent just any idiot from getting their hands on a gun. I had to get education and certification, with a mental clearance as well.
When it comes to abortion, I believe in abortion on demand. Only the woman can assign value to her pregnancy. If some woman early on with bleeding comes in begging to "save her baby," the crew will do what they can. If some woman in the third trimester needs to terminate her pregnancy, it should also be legally available.
Another poster says: "What really gets my goat is the dual nature of the abortion debate. If we, as a nation, are going to have abortion legal, have it be 100% legal. Don't play with restrictions to make it legal but difficult. If we're going to make it illegal, make it illegal."
I also wish anti-gun politicians would be honest enough to publicly come out with their anti-gun stance and let voters deal with it (for better or worse) rather than have all this, the Second Amendment is the law of the land but we need some "common sense" gun laws, that e.g., outlaw guns simply for how military or scary they look. Secretary of State Clinton has the courage to speak out against guns. The President is against guns, but to be elected and remain popular to a wider audience, he needs to engage in doublespeak, as he does about the recent waterboarding revelations.
There are certain things that it makes sense to have a 24 hour waiting period. For example, many humane societies enforce a 24 hour period between deciding on a pet to adopt, and being allowed to take that pet home. The delay is to prevent impulsive, ill-considered adoptions, and to prevent returns to the shelter. There is usually NOT a 24 hour waiting period on giving your pet to the shelter.
Maybe there should be a '24 hour waiting period' before throwing out the birth control? It doesn't make sense to enforce the 24 hour waiting period on abortion!! Because, at the end of the day, it's not a life-shattering decision to get one, no matter how hard the conservatives try to make it so...