Legislation requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound examination before terminating a pregnancy passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives and moved to the senate March 12.
Rep. Lisa Billy, R-Purcell, authored the legislation, which passed 88-11.
The bill expands on anti-abortion legislation passed in 2006 that required abortion doctors to tell women seeking abortions that they had a right to a free ultrasound exam at an offsite location.
Billy said the bill would give women as much information as possible to ensure they don’t later regret their decision, the Associated Press reported March 11.
Ashley Reynolds, College Republicans co-chairman, said the bill is an important piece of legislation for women.
“I think there should be an exception if it’s being done for the health of a mother,” she said. “I think it’s hard for people to tell themselves they are not ending a human life when they see it and hear its heartbeat.”
Young Democrats President Shane Williams said the legislature should spend time solving education and budget issues rather than passing “wedge” issues that divide voters.
“Hopefully, one day, Oklahomans will see their state representatives and senators for what their work has been in the legislature,” Williams said. “I know that if all my representative or senator passed in the legislature were wedge issues, I would vote for a new official.”
Some students also agree with Billy’s legislation. Amy Coble, an elementary education sophomore, said the legislation is helpful.
“I think it makes the baby seem more real to the girl and helps her realize what she’s going to do,” Coble said.
Becki Watterson, a human development and family sciences junior, said she thinks the legislation helps women plan their decisions.
“When a lot of women get an abortion they are under a lot of pressure and are being pushed to do it,” Watterson said. “It allows them to have a more thought-out decision.”
Sydney Shoghi, a counseling psychology freshman, said the bill could cause emotional distress for the woman.
“If you don’t see the baby, you don’t make the emotional connection,” Shoghi said. “Women do what they have to do.”
Loading ...
All Articles
I haven’t been this incensed by an article in a long time! First off, it is not the government’s job to make sure we don’t regret our decisions. I don’t have a problem with providing more information to women facing unwanted pregnancy, but you can’t make them read it, use it or abide by it - that’s called free will! Further, it is ridiculous to insinuate that having an ultrasound will turn an unwanted pregnancy into a wanted pregnancy. Finally, this legislation lets the women of Oklahoma know just how stupid our elected officials think we are. It assumes that we are too emotional to commit to a decision we’ve arrived at of our own accord; and that seeing the fetus will create such an emotional impact that we’ll want to bring a child to full term either to keep it or make it someone else’s problem. Shame on Ashley Reynolds, Becki Watterson, Amy Coble and author Emily Holman for not seeing this for what it is - morality legislation!
I completely agree with Jory’s comment.
Deciding to get an abortion is a very serious and sensitive decision. Women go through enough and the sheer fact that they are often vilified for getting an abortion is disgusting.
This matter is doubly insulting because it’s based on the age-old idea that women are nothing but mindless caregivers and “hearing its heartbeat” would immediately convince her to change her mind. Should mothers planning to give up their child for adoption be forced to look at Graduation and Wedding photos of other children to convince her to keep her baby?
Hopefully there will be enough reason in the state to realize that this will do nothing but create more obstacles for pregnant women making a personal decision.
Well on the other hand, I was glad for the article and the legislation that was passed.
Do you realize that many abortions are coerced abortions?
Regardless of how the two previous commenters feel, there is a vast number of women who are scared and concerned and have many pressures by boyfriend, friends, family, etc to have an abortion. They may hear that it’s just a blob of tissue and go through with it. Many (up to 30%) regret that they ever did it and suffer the feeling that they may have made a decision to kill a baby. If you were really concerned about women, you should consider the trauma that many experience:
1. 44% of women complained of nervous responses
2. 36% of women complained of sleep disturbances
3. 21% regret their decision of getting an abortion
4. 11% have been prescribed psychotropic medicine by a doctor.
5. 19% have suffered from post traumatic stress
6. 8% have attempted suicide.
Source: http://www.jimandellen.org/gmuhome/abortion.html
And here’s at least one testimony that the elected officials aren’t just making something up:
“Monica Burgess of Fort Mill, S.C., though, would support such a law. She was 12 weeks pregnant when the fuzzy ultrasound picture revealed the face and thrashing limbs of the child she was bearing. She said she was already convinced that an abortion would be a mistake, and seeing that image gave her solace and reinforced her decision to give up the baby, a girl, for adoption.”
Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0515/p03s03-ussc.htm
Now I am glad that miss Holman wrote on this article, partially because as miss Shoghi or Buskirk or Burson admitted, they see the the abortion as taking the life of a _baby_ or a child, not just a “fetus” or “blob of tissue” as we’ve been told in the past. This frankly frightens me, that one would admit that it’s a baby and still see no problems in the mother choosing whether it lives or dies.
A “right” becomes tyranny when it threatens the life of another human being.
I would like to counter West’s argument above, as I love a good, thoughtful debate.
No one, I think, is going to refute the quote from Ms. Burgess in the Christian
Science Monitor. Ms. Burgess is undoubtedly not alone in her decision, and I am glad and hopeful that she did what she felt was right. It is certainly her right and free will to do so.
However, I cannot accept your argument from http://www.jimandellen.org.
First, if you had read the paper you cited, you would realize that it doesn’t support your argument; the author is arguing that women who get abortions are “…not emotionally and psychologically unstable after receiving an abortion” (at Abstract). In fact, she cites evidence that the most common emotion after receiving an abortion is relief; and that “evidence now that proves that the typical abortion patient is a normal, mentally stable woman who makes a strongly determined decision for an abortion within a few days after discovery of a pregnancy, and comes through the procedure virtually unharmed.”
Second, even if it did support your case, these statistics are over 10 years old (check out her bibliography). Certainly there was more current data you could rely upon to state your case.
Third, this paper was written by either a high school or college student as a class assignment for Ellen Moody. That’s why it says “Model Research Paper” at the top. It is unacceptable to me to use such a work as a key part of any argument.
The issue is, I am not telling you or anyone else what to do with your body. Do whatever you want. And, I hardly see the adverse side-effects you cited (nervous responses, sleep disturbances, PTSD, etc;) as being substantial enough to warrant such government micromanagement.
Awaiting your response,
Jory
Jory,
“I am not telling you or anyone else what to do with your body.”
I agree with that fully, but the child who is in the womb has a body, too. At least give that child a chance to show his or her body off through an ultrasound.
Asher
I just wanted to throw in my two cents:
I used to be pro-choice - that was before I had my son. Now I look at him and the thought that anyone might want to end a wonderful, bright little life like that literally makes me sick to my stomach.
Ms. Burson,
I wasn’t intending to have a debate, but I do appreciate thoughtful arguments as well.
You are correct, I should have read the article more carefully. As it was, I admit to looking for statistics, and being in a rush, grabbed one of the first things that I could find.
In response to your second statement, I don’t see why 10-year old statistics would make any difference in this case. The point was to say that there is a very large group of women (even if it is a minority) that suffer regret from an abortion. Surely in their case it would have been good to see an ultrasound so they could have made a fully informed decision.
In response to your third statement, my reason for citing anything was to show that I wasn’t making statistics up. I could have “shot from the hip” and said quite a bit but it would have been me as my source. As it is, either of us can find statistics to support our case if one looks hard enough.
Now your statement was that you don’t care what I or anyone else does with their body. That is fine. I can agree to that even though I want to do all I can to inform so that they don’t harm themselves. However, we are not just talking about the woman’s body. As you, Shoghi or Buskirk stated, we are talking about a baby. That baby is a human and not simply part of the mother’s body.
As to my argument, I’m attempting to explain that this legislation is good because it more fully informs the woman. Many women say they were just told it was a blob of tissue, that the ultrasound monitor was always turned away from them, that they never saw it move. Then later, when they find out that it really looked like a baby, hiccuped, and sucked it thumb even at 12 weeks, they were shocked and stressed over their past decision.
If it makes no difference to women who are having an abortion anyway, then why oppose it? If it does help others, even a minority, to make an informed decision, then it seems like this legislation is truly in support of women’s rights.
I realize that you stated you don’t oppose more information, just the government imposing it. Well what is currently happening is that everything is done to discourage the woman from realizing that their is a child in the womb. Many are falsely led to believe it’s an unrecognizeable lump of tissue. Perhaps this measure will do something to change that. The woman can still refuse to see the ultrasound if she wants to.
I realize that this is a bit pieced together for now but I’m rather in a rush.
Logan,
I think our differences on the matter are becoming quite clear. But before I go there, a rebuttal:
You stated that you don’t see how 10-year-old statistics make a difference. They make a difference on many levels. One, medical care and technique for women undergoing abortions has no doubt improved since 1997. Such improvements could definitely be a factor in decreasing the adverse side affects listed. Also, public opinion and concern about abortion has certainly changed some since 1997. It has become more socially acceptable for women to get abortions. These statistics do not account for the side affects caused by the psychological response. If a woman believes it to be more socially acceptable to have an abortion, she may not suffer any adverse side affects. Finally, as statisticians know, statistics can only represent a certain population at a given time. A sample of women who had abortions in 1997 cannot be representative of women who have abortions in 2008.
You say a minority portion of women suffer regret after receiving an abortion - We are in agreement on this point. We are in disagreement over whether the government is responsible for making sure we don’t regret our decisions. This is a very important distinction I made in my first post. There is no law or statute that says that the government has a substantial interest to keep people from regretting decisions. To add one would be a very slippery slope eroding our right of free will.
And now Logan, our main differences:
I don’t believe an ultrasound is necessary for the woman who has already made an informed decision to have an abortion. Simply put, an ultrasound is not the only way of knowing the development of a fetus. As it is completely possible to have a baby without ever getting using ultrasound, it is also completely possible to abort a baby without an ultrasound. There are other ways to learn the same information an ultrasound provides without having to see what the fetus looks like physically. This law targets women who have already decided to have an abortion. If they have already done the hard part (come to a presumably informed decision – which one MUST assume) why make them jump through another hoop?
I don’t believe an unborn child has rights. This law assumes that they do, and that the unborn have rights that supersede the mother’s rights. There is no law or statute that says that an unborn fetus does have any rights – but if there were to become one, it’s another slippery slope. It won’t be long before anything a pregnant woman does that could be considered harmful to an unborn child would be a human rights violation. A mother would become a second-class citizen to the fetus. I know that is an extreme thing to say, but that is exactly the kinds of ideas that are made when we pass morality legislation.
Because this post is going on too long, I’ll make one last point – you said, “If it makes no difference to women who are having an abortion anyway, then why oppose it?” I say, if it makes no difference, why bother making it a law? Why should taxpayers pay for the ultrasounds of women who don’t want them? We already have a law on the books that states women who are getting abortions must be told by their physician that they can get a free ultrasound if they want one, as Holman stated in the article. Taxpayers are already helping out on this issue in this way. I don’t want to make a woman get an ultrasound if she doesn’t want one – and I don’t want to pay for it either.
p.s. Logan, I am rather enjoying this debate with you. In my opinion, this is what college is all about and I hope you feel the same way. Have a great day.
Former Presidential candidate, Alan Keyes shares his views on the commonalities between abortion and slavery
Speech in San Francisco, 3/3/2000
You see, people wonder why it is Alan, everywhere he goes, he always brings up this issue of abortion and I never go anywhere without mentioning it. Why? Because abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century, and if anyone of conscience went anywhere in the 19th Century and did not confront the American people with the evil of slavery, then they were not doing what statesmanship required. Slavery was what discarded and rejected and denied the fundamental principle of right and justice in America, and what was done in the name of slavery then is done for the sake of abortion now. And the paradigm of it is quite clear. What is it that is the argument made in favor of abortion? You can see it in Roe versus Wade and everything else. It’s a privacy argument, and privacy based on what? Well, this is the woman’s body and she has the right to decide what goes on with it. You start from that. And this child, this babe, this fetus in the womb, what is it? Well, it’s a part of her body utterly dependent on her body, not viable apart from her body. She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will. We don’t recognize what that’s saying? What that’s saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will. And if that argument is now accepted, and we have embraced it as a fundamental principle of law, then we have rejected the right principle. For if our right, our most basic and conditional right, the right to life itself comes to us not from God but from our mother’s choice, then there is no human right that transcends in its claim, human choice and human power. Abortion is the paradigm, the ultimate paradigm of despotism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, holocaust. And I see this all the time. I was down in South Carolina not long ago. I was down in South Carolina not long ago and a young lady comes up to me after I had given a talk just like this, and she says “I was listening to your speech and I want to know how come you can prefer the rights of potential persons to those of actual persons.” I’ll never forget that moment because she was the very paradigm–if you want to think of some little slip of the thing that projected the very wonderful wholesome air of American womanhood. And she was speaking to me in what; in the chilling language of holocaust and atrocity. And she didn’t even know what she was doing. I looked at her and I said, “You know, I have a 17-year-old son. How old are you?” And she said, “Nineteen.” And I said, “You know, you make a very rash assumption in what you ask me there.” She looked me quizzically, and I said, “Because given my experience with my 17-year-old son, I have to tell you there are many days on which I am not entirely sure that people of your age are actual persons at all.” And then to drive the point home even further, I looked at her and I said, “I hope you don’t think that I will hear those words and forget that 120, 130 odd years ago Frederick Douglass had to go in front of audiences with a speech entitled “That the Negro is a Man.” To prove that he and others like me were actual persons.” See, why do people forget this? They speak this cold-blooded language to people like myself as if we’re too stupid to remember that the day before yesterday we were not considered actual persons. And that if today we deny the principle on which we stood in order to demand respect for our humanity, if we deny it to those human beings in the womb, it will be denied once again to us and to others. Because then it just becomes a matter of who you can get on your side to draw the line between humanity and nonhumanity, personhood and nonpersonhood, and then the majority can oppress and the powerful can abuse. And those who end up on the wrong side have nothing.
http://www.abortiontv.com/Words/Slavery.htm
Well it didn’t take as long as I thought it would for someone to invoke Godwin’s Law! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law if anyone needs a refresher on what that means.
Anyway, I found Keyes’ philosophical points interesting, and I really think that is a great argument if we were debating Roe v. Wade. As it were, we’re not, so this point isn’t really appropriate for the discussion at hand. But again, if we were debating philosophies for Roe v. Wade, that would rank among the best I’ve heard. It just doesn’t relate to taxpayers paying for the forced ultrasounds of women who plan on legally having an abortion because lawmakers want to make them feel bad.
Jory,
Apparently I’m not so good about remembering to check back every couple of days. I will no longer post to this but if you care to e-mail me…
logan.west@okstate.edu
First the rebuttals:
I still find it hard to believe that demographics have changed all that much in ten years. In 30, yes, I could see that. Aside from that, I stated that my point in bringing up any statistics was to show that it wasn’t all roses and that many women suffer regret and depression afterwards.
I will agree that it is not the government’s position to make sure that people do not regret their decisions, however I think that the point I’ve been laboring to make is that abortion seem to go out of their way to convince the woman that it’s merely a blob of tissue. Many say “I wish I had been more informed” and that has been shown in a couple of examples. Do you want women to make informed decisions or misguided ones?
You say you don’t believe that an ultrasound is necessary for the woman who has already made an informed decision to have an abortion. I agree that someone who is already set on it probably would not change their mind. But that’s not the point. The point is that they would now be told they have that right to an ultrasound. For a woman who is uncertain and afraid (as many are), this could make a huge impact.
This law targets women who are in an abortion clinic but you cannot state emphatically that we must assume that they have made an informed decision already, because statistically this isn’t the case! Many afterwards say they didn’t know. I already gave an example of one whose mind it did change. Many come to the abortion clinic still rather uncertain and are rushed through the process regardless. There are many testimonies of this.
You said in reply to my statement “I say, if it makes no difference, why bother making it a law?” But that misses the point I was trying to make. I claim it does make a difference. Many abortion activists (I don’t know if you are among this group or not) claim it makes no difference to the decision of a woman and therefore shouldn’t be made a law. My question to them is that if they truly think it doesn’t make a difference, then why oppose it? If it does indeed make a difference (as I claim) then it can only be good, right?
Lastly, and in response partially to Nelson and yourself, the issue is much deeper. I’ve tried to confine it to the topic at hand but it has gone deeper. You say you do not believe that the unborn child has rights. There is no law or statue that says that the unborn child has rights. The mother would become a second-class citizen (in your view) to the child.
But what authority do you appeal to? The authority of your own opinion? As I would have pointed out anyway, had not Nelson brought up this story, that is strikingly similar to the issue of the African slaves. Here were people that the law did not protect, it even described them as property and thus the owner could do to their bodies whatever he pleased. Just because there is no law in place, just because you don’t think they are human beings and have rights, does not mean they do not.
Let me ask this: Does the white male become a second-class citizen to the African slave during the civil rights movement? If what you are saying about the mother becoming a second-class citizen to the child is true, then the answer is yes. The terminating or overruling the rights of one human being does not protect the rights of another. Does not past history teach us that this is called tyranny?