Women’s rights have been discussed in a lot of recent news
articles, especially dealing with the health reform. But lately I have been
looking at a relatively new senate bill that requires women to have an
ultrasound before getting an abortion. The bill has been introduced to many
states and was passed in the Virginia State Senate this past week as well as
other states.
Many people argue that this bill takes away women’s rights
because they shouldn’t be required to do an extra procedure before undergoing an
abortion. I found in some states that the patient pays for the ultrasound and in
others I found that the clinic is responsible for costs. In Louisiana, the
drafted “Ultrasound Before Abortion” bill states that the woman must get a list
of free ultrasound services from the abortion provider, and that the abortion
provider would perform the ultrasound 2 hours before the procedure. She then
would get the options of viewing the ultrasound screen, hearing a description
of the image, or printing the image from the ultrasound.
The other side of this issue is that women need to be fully
informed before going through with a medical procedure like abortion. According
to the Huffington Post, the bill requires women to have an
ultrasound, but it gives them a choice if they want to view the ultrasound and listen
to the heartbeat or not. Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel sponsors the legislation
and the Washington Post has her stating that the bill “does not infringe on a
woman’s decision, her autonomy. It is not invasive. It does not attempt to
infringe in any way on the doctor-patient relationship, and it absolutely does
not infringe on her right to have an abortion.”
Even if the woman is completely ready for abortion, I think
she should have to have the ultrasound and have the opportunity to view the
heartbeat and the image. If she decides
to have an abortion after the ultrasound, at least she would be fully informed
on what she is doing. On WVEC News, the Alaska Senate Minority Leader John Coghill said, “The choice is the
female’s, and I respect that as much as I can respect it. But I’m also trying
to bring as much respect for what a pregnancy really is.” I agree with his statement, and overall I think the bill is a good idea. It's important for people to be more informed on
medical procedures they are seeking.
I agree with you in that I don’t think women are informed enough when making the decision to have an abortion. Lots of people don’t understand or want to understand that it’s a real baby inside of them. Most people when they find out their pregnant are terrified; they think it’s a disease or something. A large part of this I think is because a lot of people who become pregnant and seek abortions are teenagers who aren’t ready to become a parent. However, I think they need to take responsibility for their actions. I think it’s a good idea for women to have ultrasounds before abortions. That gives them a little more time to think about what their actually doing. It also can medically show them what it is they’re getting rid of; and maybe after those few extra hours, images of the baby, and hearing that heartbeat, they’ll change their mind.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that women should have to have an ultrasound before going through with an abortion. If a woman is dead set on having the abortion, then having an ultrasound will not affect her decision. Also, if the woman is unsure about whether or not to go through with an abortion, seeing the ultrasound could potentially change her mind and save a child's life. This rule is perfectly acceptable because a woman actually has the choice to either look away from the monitor, or see her baby. Whether or not this changes her decision is up to the woman. But I do believe that women should be informed on what they are about to do.
ReplyDelete