H.B. 200 Informed Consent, which requires ultrasound images to be taken and then displayed to women seeking abortions, if they so choose [to see the images], has generated much controversy, as anything having to do with a woman’s right to choose does. This bill made it through the Utah House last week.
An article in the Deseret News has yielded some interesting comments from readers:
This law is a fairly transparent attempt to reduce the number of abortions by counting on pregnant women to change their minds after seeing an ultrasound of their living fetus. Naturally there are two ways to look at this: the pro-life view is that if a woman is confronted with graphic images of the fetus she can’t otherwise see, she will make an emotional decision against the abortion. The pro-choice view is that this is the equivalent of a protester standing outside the clinic with graphic photos of aborted fetuses — in other words, intimidation. Both views have some validity, which is why abortion is such a difficult debate in the first place. How many women will “choose” to see these images, is hard to say; whether any medical providers will somehow “show” the images to a woman without being asked is also hard to predict. And so the tug of war over a highly personal issue, between two equally passionate factions, with vulnerable, pregnant women in the middle, goes on and on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Legislature, please show some compassion to victims of sexual violence. Imagine if it was your daughter, wife or sister who was attacked. Would you still thrust this upon her?
These women CAN’T sleep at night. That is why they make the painful choice to have an abortion. This is a bill of re-victimization. Even in the cases where the pregnancy was just unplanned, it is not the government’s right to interfere with the woman or her doctor’s decision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What a complete WASTE of tax payers dollars and a HUGE WASTE of our State Legislatures time. We have so many other huge problems like our deficit and our unemployment crisis to fix. This bills only purpose is to try and make a woman change their mind as the congressman said in the article. To all Utah residents and to all the members of the Utah congress, abortion is LEGAL! Get used to it. I can’t wait to cast my vote this next election against any incumbent who voted in support of this. The abortion clinics should have the choice to support and install this in their facility, not be forced to. If this passes into law I hope the ACLU will fight this and get it overturned.
H.B. 200 does not provide complete disclosure to the woman seeking an abortion. While this bill is aimed in reality at attempting to have women change their minds about abortion (even after long and often painful thought into the decision), there are no provisions whatsoever to provide financial support by the government if the woman changes her mind. The “information” and “education” does not, for example, include the reality of the costs of raising a child; the emotional distress of giving the baby up for adoption and subsequently the legal rights of the birth mother to stay connected, or not, to the child; or parenting issues education. [Tongue in cheek] If state legislators are intent on making it difficult for women to make their own choices through a bill that legislates moral values, they should include in such a bill the financial obligation and commitment to support the woman and her child should she change her mind about having the abortion. “Informed” consent? Not really.
Filed under: Reproductive Rights, Utah Legislature
I still find it difficult to believe that anyone would oppose this bill. I see it to be a transparent and bi-partison way to decrease the abortion rate in Utah. It doesn’t matter if you are pro-life or pro-choice, we can all agree that giving a woman an option to more information can only help a her as she makes what will likely be one of the most important decisions of her life.
This bill will give the OPTION for a woman to see her ultrasound image before going through with her decision. Nothing more than: “Would you like to see the images of your ultrasound?”
Yes, I am well aware of the OPTION feature. I fully support all information and education being presented to women so that they can make completely informed decisions. This bill does not provide that, in my opinion. My objections are:
1) Spending time and taxpayer money on this legislation (It really has no business in government)
2) I do not feel that this OPTION is one that should come without other information and education pieces so that an “informed” decision can be made prior to the actual day of the procedure. I picture a woman waiting for the procedure and having to make an “informed” decision on the spot after she had already made the decision to have the procedure done. In my opinion, that is not fair.
Really?? The government can’t let a woman look at an ultrasound without paying for the entire upbringing of a child if the woman changes her mind about abortion? Who writes this garbage? There are reasons to be for and against this bill to be sure. As a libertarian I would tend to keep the government out of it and frankly see this as an ultrasound subsidy of sorts. However that last paragraph in the article is complete garbage!
And I agree that the government should stay out of it!
I was trying to drive home the point that if the government is going to meddle in this, they should go all the way with a complete education and support. I’m not advocating for that necessarily!
The last bit in the last paragraph is tongue in cheek, for sure.
Just trying to get people thinking about the whole debacle of this issue being in legislation in the first place. My own personal stance is that it does not belong in the hands of the legislature. It is a personal choice and should remain that way without legislative interference in any way.
Would seeing the ultrasound images change a woman’s mind about an abortion? Possibly — and probably not for the right reasons. I can tell you that 99% of all women who seek abortions do not make their choice lightly. Many considerations come into play: can I afford to have another child? Do I have the emotional maturity to care for someone for nearly two decades? How will this impact my family currently? Can my body physically do this?
This legislation is a cynical ploy to add another layer of emotional attachment to an already difficult decision. As it is currently written it is a choice, but one that already exists. This legislation seems like an incremental chipping away at choice. This year it’s optional — next year it could be mandatory. And it makes the recent Onion story title seem not too far from reality: “New Law Requires Women to Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion” http://www.theonion.com/content/video/new_law_requires_women_to_name
[...] asks for the information (which, by the way, woman can already do….). See post on that bill here. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Health Interactive Column of Friday, 6th November [...]