Missouri State Senate Passes Additional, Traumatizing Anti-Choice Legislation

Sorted under anti-choice extremism, reproductive rights on May 17, 2009

Just three days ago, the Missouri state Senate passed a bill in a 25 to 7 vote to expand restrictions currently on access to abortion in the state.

The additional restrictions would include requiring women who are seeking an abortion to be informed of certain information–in person–24 hours prior to the abortion procedure. The “certain information” the bill speaks of includes a description of the procedure and associated health risks (which I am guessing includes all of those anti-choice lies such as abortion causing breast cancer, the oh so popular post-abortion syndrome buzzword anti-choicers are so fond of, and equally as ridiculous propaganda.) Women seeking abortion services are currently being informed of the so-called health risks that are associated with an abortion, but they are currently being allowed to receive this information over the phone. With this new bill, women will have to be told about so-called health risks in person; it bodes well for the woman shaming and anti-choice intimidation aspect of seeking a safe and legal medical procedure. Women will also be given a description of fetal development, information on possible fetal pain after 22 weeks gestation, information on options other than abortions (such as keeping your unwanted child and adoption, although I’m betting they will leave out the information about children aging out of the foster care system and leading a life of poverty or finding a foster care family that neglects and beats the child while collecting a monthly check), and an offer to show the patient ultrasound images and make the heartbeat audible.

This is yet another series of abortion bans to scare women out of the fundamental right of having control over their reproductive organs and freedoms. Access to abortion should always be safe, legal, and rare for all women living all around the world and while there are so many women around this world dying every year because of the lack of abortion access and the laws that prohibit the pro-choice population from offering reproductive health services to women, society is too busy condemning women for their reproductive health choices.

The entire 24 hour waiting period legislation is completely lost on me. In most, if not all cases, women have already thought about their options and have made the educated decision to seek abortion services. Just because the anti-choice population doesn’t like that decision does not mean that that woman has not put thought into her decision.

To force a woman to hear about fetal development, possible fetal pain, and see an ultrasound is traumatizing to that woman, especially considering that she has already given thought to the options regarding her pregnancy. It is regulations like this that would lead to a woman becoming depressed or regretting her decision to have that abortion. It is the anti-choice legislation that claims it is enforcing regulations for the safety of women that is actually hurting and traumatizing women.



You May Also Enjoy:

  • James
    I personally do not believe in abortion in but few cases. I know there are times when abortion would be an acceptable option, but I feel those options are the minority.

    In the case of rape I cannot make a decision so I will be on the fence in regards to that topic of discussion.

    But if a woman has sex knowing full well she can have a child (no form of birth control is 100%). Then she should let the life of the child weigh very heavily in the decision making process.

    The whole term pro-choice should be re-named, as it does give the woman choice, but not the infant. Of course we could argue on that topic forever of when an 'infant' is alive or not.

    I make no assumptions to any woman who has ever had to make such a difficult choice or to those that have made the choice already.

    To those who take the time and really think about what they are doing and commit themselves to making the best decision for themselves and the unborn child, then I thank you for putting the time forth and thinking about it.

    But to any woman who makes the choice freely and irresponsibly which I will assume is the minority should be ashamed of themselves.

    But you also cannot use the argument that foster care is a horrible program. I know foster parents that are amazing and yes some do abuse and beat and do unspeakable things to those children. Those are the people that should be arrested and filtered out of the foster care program.
  • So sex = babies. But only for women. I notice a stunning lack of judgment on the part of the men who are having this sex (knowing full well he can have a child, afterall "no form of birth control is 100%). Why is that?

    And you're opposed to abortion even though you say a "minority" of women do so for bad reasons, yet you say that no judgments should be made about the foster care system even though "yes some do abuse and beat and do unspeakable things to those children"?

    I say that women shouldn't be considered portable baby carrying receptacles, and that sex =/= reproduction. I say that women and men should enter equally into the process of child raising and that putting the onus of responsibility on women does a disservice to women and men. I say that foster care is necessary and probably important, (and would like to one day be a foster parent) but still can say that it is currently horribly flawed. I say that those who are anti-choice should be called that, instead of using euphemisms implying the supposed importance of life to them. Especially considering that just about any well done study looking at heavily "pro-life" groups/populations shows that they are consistently: less interested in children's health once the children are born, less interested in mother's health post partum, less interested in welfare for poor mothers and families, more interested in war, more interested in the death penalty, and less interested in medicine that helps save women's lives (for instance the insistence on NOT having a vaccine to prevent HPV, since the potential CANCER that was caused by HPV was considered a deterent for women having sex).
  • James
    Sex does not equal babies only for women. If any man has sex with a woman they need to be just as ready to have a child as a woman is. Sex = babies for both men and woman. Just because the woman carriers the baby does not exempt the man from responsibility, or should not.

    I think you mixed up my paragraphs by mistake, or didn't understand what I was trying to convey. I am opposed to abortion, but not just because a possible minority of woman do so for bad reasons. What I said was "I personally do not believe in abortion in but few cases. I know there are times when abortion would be an acceptable option, but I feel those options are the minority." Meaning I do not believe in abortion unless it is some extreme cases, such as having the baby puts the life of baby and mother in jeopardy.

    You also said I said that no judgements should be make about the foster care system even though "yes some do abuse and beat and do unspeakable things to those children"?

    What I said was "But you also cannot use the argument that foster care is a horrible program. I know foster parents that are amazing and yes some do abuse and beat and do unspeakable things to those children. Those are the people that should be arrested and filtered out of the foster care program."

    Meaning yes there are people who make very bad choices in regards to raising children in the foster care system. Those people need to be weeded out and punished. Just because some people make bad choices does not mean the program itself is bad. The argument in the article said the foster care system was bad because children are abused or could lead a life in poverty. That is like saying 100% of children are abused who enter foster care or will age out of the program and live a life of poverty which is incorrect.

    There is nothing wrong in my opinion with giving a mother all the information she may or may not have already before she makes a decision. Some woman can probably make the decision and not think twice, some woman can make the decision and commit suicide down the road, and some women will probably make the decision and live in guilt. What is so wrong with having mothers have all the information at their finger tips before they make that decision? Perhaps that just may prevent some women from committing suicide down the road. I can't see this decision curtailing more women to wanting to take their own life, so honestly what harm can this do?

    In the end the woman will still have the same choice she had before she had the information, she will just be more informed.
  • James..u seems to have very strong and different views. But I agree with you.
  • Really it is nice blog and given information is really very useful and thanks for sharing it.
  • Whenever I read stuff like this I like to flip it on its head.
    For instance, what if every woman who became pregnant was required to be given information about abortion options? When she bought a home pregnancy test, what if the store was required to give her information about her right to have an abortion, and maybe she was forced to read the latest report on child abuse in foster situations?

    I wonder how the legislators would feel about that... I have a feeling that wouldn't strike them as so awesome.

    (Actually that thought makes me really anxious too, but that's the point, I think that women should have the right to choose, not to be forced into a position)
  • tinkapuss
    What they are espousing as 'information' and 'education' seems more likely to traumatise women who have already had to make a traumatic choice.

    I still think about the potential child I chose to abort 19 years ago in your state of Colorado (I'm Australian and was travelling) and it will in many ways haunt me for the rest of my life - BUT - whether the government had forced me to have the type of 'counselling' that is being introduced in Missouri or not, I still would have gone ahead with the procedure; the only difference being (by the sound of it) is that the 'counselling' would have made me feel worse than I already did!

    Women who are choosing abortion already know what is going on inside their bodies. They know the consequences of their actions (in theory, if not yet practice) and it's a tortuous decision no matter what. (And for the minority of women who use abortion as a method of birth control or who really don't have any guilt or qualms about having an abortion to begin with, probably shouldn't be mothers at that stage of their lives anyway...)
blog comments powered by Disqus