Comic for 5/30/12

[d murphy]

i think i actually said everything in the blog for once, but if there's more you want to add. say it here.

[Lauren]

As a pro-lifer I am probably pretty biased on this, but I strongly disagree that the laws requiring abortion providers to perform or display ultra-sounds violate the do not harm principle. In Texas, where I live, abortion providers are required to meet with their patients 24 hours in advance to perform an ultra-sound (which the woman may or may not choose to view), offer the patient a state-mandated booklet about fetal development, and answer any questions the patient may have. I absolutely agree that learning about the developmental stage of your fetus makes it more emotionally difficult to go through with an abortion, but isn't is always better to have all the facts before making a difficult and life-changing decision? Wouldn't it be so much worse to go through with the decision to have an abortion without the facts, and then later feel regret knowing you would have made a different decision if you had known more? Frankly I think it is condescending to women to say that they aren't strong enough to face the reality of their choice.

[d murphy]

to which i say, is information included about the pain of childbirth and pregnancy, the physical and financial strain to raise a child, or the reality of the inconsistency of the adoption system? i'll agree there's no easy answer, but i don't see how only presenting one side of an argument makes a decision easier.

i'd like to believe most women who come to an abortion clinic have given some cursory thought to their situation. this belief may be naive, so i actually lean towards favoring 24 hour wait periods and mandatory therapy sessions to evaluate whether a patient has thought about their situation (and screen for signs of abuse, which i find a bit more important), but mandating that patients be bombarded with imagery or information to dictate a specific choice seems inconsiderate and dangerous to their mental health (especially when they've given an indication they're leaning the other way).

i see no reason why a patient should be forced to see an ultrasound (or have a more invasive ultrasound as the ultrasound is only necessary to determine the age of the zygote/fetus which can be done without a vaginal scan), especially considering that a patient who intends to give birth can opt out of viewing one (which i've heard of patients deciding to put their child up for adoption doing so).

the information booklet is more or less fine depending on the wording of its content as a patient can choose not to read it, but i would strongly advocate an additional booklet advocating the opposite choice so that she's truly making an informed decision and not getting emotially and mentally abused into something she doesn't want to do. preferrably one booklet covering both sides would be better than two, and maybe no booklet, but i'm not a medical professional so i can't evaluate what's the most humane position.

however, in terms of informing women of their options. i don't see how just presenting one position is fair, just, or unharmful.

[Lauren]

You say that it is unfair, unjust, and possibly even harmful to only be presented with one choice, but the sonogram/booklet laws are in place to stop just that. The abortion provider is the one presenting the abortion-choice in a positive light. (I'm sure most providers try to give balanced counsel but everyone is biased). A booklet is actually a very weak opponent to a person standing in front of you who has a vested (monetary) interest that you go through with your abortion. (Not of course to say that everyone who works in abortion clinics will try to push you into an abortion, but as with any profession, there are some very unscrupulous people out there who are willing to give women insufficient or even inaccurate information just so they can make money).

[d murphy]

if abortion clinics were truly vested solely (and soullessly) in making money from abortions why would they invest money in birth control and pregnancy prevention procedures? wouldn't that hurt their business?

and furthermore if the patient already ventured forward to make an appointment at a clinic, wouldn't transparency be more comforting to them than supplying them with material a doctor didn't believe?

now, maybe a patient does want to be talked out of a procedure. maybe they don't. i place a lot of faith in the therapists who evaluate patients, because they do not stand to benefit from the outcome of a session either way as they're paid per session (which will occur regardless of the choice a patient makes), which contributes to my support of the idea of counelling sessions (unlike the sonogram examiners who could potentially make money from abortion procedures, which is another reason the forced sonogram exposure seems unjustified). besides who are we to place a hypothetical judgment on a person whose circumstances we do not fully know as they are not our own?

if a clinic creates a hostile environment presenting unwarranted information that a patient isn't carefully prepared for or if a clinic becomes illegal and ceases to exist, what's to stop a woman from getting unprofessional treatment and resorting to rat poison to induce a miscarriage or risking serious, possibly fatal infection, by piercing their uterus with a coat hanger or other improperly sterilized and incorrectly used object.

all of these ideas, to me, contribute to a do not harm principle as the more difficult a process becomes, the more can go wrong. but i understand suspicion of a clinic's motivations, especially as more states make efforts to reduce funding that could support of these facilities.

although you and i may never choose to have an abortion, even if we found ourselves in a situation to make that choice, i don't feel we can speak for every other person and what choice they may make. so if someone is to make that difficult choice, i would hope they can do so in an environment that feels safe and accomodating not cold and confusing and mired in procedure that draws out an already extremely emotional and difficult situation.

[janiceoly]

Lauren, I felt compelled to respond to you. There are so many reasons why women wind up seeking abortions, so many circumstances. Here is a situation in which requiring abortion providers to show the ultra-sound to the woman can definitely caused harm:
www.democraticunderground.com/1002430374
“I don’t want to have to do this at all,” I told her. “I’m doing this to prevent my baby’s suffering. I don’t want another sonogram when I’ve already had two today. I don’t want to hear a description of the life I’m about to end."
She had the facts already. All the Texas law did was inflict further suffering.

Apparently, the law has provisions exempting the ultra-sound requirement when the fetus has abnormalities, but that was not yet well understood.
The law does not seem to have exemptions for the mother's health. What if she requires medications (such as chemotherapy) that will harm the embryo or fetus? What if multiple psychologists testify that carrying the pregnancy to term will probably lead to her suicide because of deep-seated trauma?
Better yet, why is there no exemption if the woman can show she already had an ultra-sound that day?

Why do we as a country think that legislative mandates that do not account for individual circumstances will be more responsive to the needs of mother & fetus than the trained medical professionals? Is that not condescending to the medical professionals?