Anti-abortion activists are marching on Washington today to protest ‘Roe v. Wade,’ the 38-year old Supreme Court decision that legalized choice. Abortion and its attendant laws remain among the nation’s most divisive, complex disputes. But the conservative effort to guilt women out of having them by enforcing ultrasounds is one of the most often overlooked and morally worrisome controversies of the lot.
Today’s annual “March for Life” in DC comes as newly empowered Republicans prepare a wave of laws aimed at restricting abortions, including stricter regulations for minors and stiffer prohibitions on abortions after 20 weeks. And then there are the ultrasound requirements, which would encourage or sometimes require doctors to show their patient an image of the fetus and point out any formed anatomy.
Twenty states already have such laws, with Kentucky, whose Senate approved an ultrasound law earlier this month, looking like the latest addition to the roster.
An Oklahoma court is currently weighing whether that state’s law requiring explanation of an ultrasound one hour ahead of the procedure crosses the line, while officials in Ohio, Texas, Maryland and elsewhere are laying the groundwork for their own versions.
According to pro-life activists who support required ultrasounds, the image helps women to make an informed judgment, and perhaps even prevent them from getting the abortion entirely.
“To be able to put a face on that baby humanizes this process and really allows the mother to connect,” explained Carrie Gordon Earll from Focus on the Family. “Ultrasound is one of the ultimate examples of informed consent because you are seeing what you are giving permission to happen.”
But many opponents of ultrasound stipulations see the issue as a matter of unnecessary government intrusion.
“Personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary,” said former Gov. Charlie Crist after vetoing Florida’s ultrasound law last year.
President Obama also made a “big government” argument in his statement celebrating the 38th anniversary of ‘Roe v. Wade’ this weekend: “[The case] affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”
But still others argue that ultrasound regulations aren’t simply about state governments overstepping their bounds. These laws, they say, are psychologically invasive. I’m inclined to agree.
Almost everyone can agree abortions aren’t an arbitrary decision. The procedure presents women — and men, too — with wrenching emotional challenges. And the scenario becomes even more sensitive in cases of rape and incest. Forcing a patient to view an ultrasound intensifies the painful experience by trying to create a connection between the patient and the fetus.
One woman told the ‘New York Times’ that she refused to look at a pre-abortion ultrasound because “it just would have added to the pain of what is already a difficult decision.” And an Oklahoma abortion provider described the law as “very intrusive, and very cruel,” before noting that none of the women who have elected to look at their ultrasound or changed their mind.
With so many women saying ultrasounds added to their anguish or had no impact shows that these laws, which conservatives admit are psychically manipulative, need to be repealed or opposed.
Supporters of ultrasound stipulations want nothing more than to guilt women out of having an abortion. They’re exploiting people’s emotions to spread a conservative ideology, and, quite frankly, that’s the most sordid type of politicking imaginable.
