In the Huffington Post's article this week about Michele Bachmann's proposal for a new anti-abortion measure it is clear she is both out to snatch uber conservative support, and that she's a little off the rocker upstairs.
Last Thursday Bachmann came out with a statement aimed to help us remember "the issue of life." Her proposal, if passed, would mean that women in the early stages of pregnancy would be have to see images of their unborn baby, and have them thoroughly described by the physician, as well as hear the heartbeat whether they want to or not. The bill, titled "Heartbeat Informed Consent Act," is not that clear cut; however, it would require an invasive procedure, which is performed transvaginally if the pregnancy is between four and five weeks, and can be extremely uncomfortable for the woman. Dr. Nancy Stanwood, a member of the health advocacy group Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, says, "It's also medically unnecessary. Some politicians might see it as ideologically necessary, but it's medically unnecessary, so the government telling you that you need to have one sounds ridiculous on many levels."
The point, obviously, is to try and get women who are planning on having an abortion to back out of it because they will feel moral and emotional obligation to have their babies once they hear and see them. Bachmann recites a statistic she found from a pro-life organization that this is an effective counter-abortion measure for 78% of women, but that number may be a bit steep and even if it is not, does that make it ok for the government to force you into a morally agonizing position to get its desired reaction out of you? I personally don't think it is and neither did Dr. Stanwood would said that out of her 16 years of experience she found that women are completely aware of the situation that they are in when they are considering abortion and showing them images or sounds tends not to derail them from the reason they want one. She also says that part of these very conscious decisions have to with the desire to be good mothers. Women often choose to have abortions because they are fully aware they cannot take care of a baby the way it deserves to be taken care of at that time and so choose to wait until they are able to provide for the child. Not to take away from the importance of the issue by any means but this is essentially the same reason pets are made to be neutered. We don't want stray dogs and cats running around everywhere with no one to take care of them and living a life of constant starvation. Similarly, we shouldn't want to promote homeless mothers and children especially when the mothers know they could have given their child a better life when they had their own life in a more stable place.
However, there really is nothing to fear with this bill. It may get past the House but the Senate will shut it down without a second glance and the Supreme Court would be quick to back that up if necessary. In Texas a bill was just shut down because it wanted to penalize doctors for not forcing their patients listen to the description of a sonogram.
Lastly, I am still sometimes shocked that any woman could push for a suggestion like this. I don't care how religious you are, if God always knows whats best then he's probably the one who gives a woman that intituition letting her know if she is actually ready to provide a baby with a life of happiness and love. If something is saying to a woman inside that she isn't ready for a baby then that's most likely a voice worth listening to.
No comments:
Post a Comment