All Entries Tagged With: "pro-life"
Back to the Basics of Choice
There has been quite an outcry among the pro-choice community of late against a recent bill passed by the Utah legislature. The bill gives women a choice to see the fetus before choosing to get an abortion. Apparently, the “Pro-Choice” community is becoming less about choice and educated decisions, and more about defending abortion at all costs. The reaction to this bill by some voices within the pro-choice movement, such as Planned Parenthood, is a prime example of the movement’s tendency to discourage real choices. The bill is not forcing women to see the fetus, only giving them the choice they should have had all along and that Planned Parenthood has denied.
The bill, HB 200, changes the current informed consent and states that abortion centers must allow women a chance to see an ultrasound before the abortion is done and requires abortion facilities to provide a detailed description of the unborn child to the mother considering abortion. Sponsored by Republican state Rep. Carl Wimmer, the legislation furthermore, “requires the state Department of Health to produce both printed and video information about the ultrasound viewing that abortion businesses must give women 24 hours in advance of the abortion informing them of their rights to view one.”
Rather than giving women complete control of information, and access to all things pertaining to the woman’s body and fetus, it seems Planned Parenthood would rather blindly lead women into an uneducated decision.
Currently, any surgery, medical procedure or medicine given in the medical community at large comes complete with a laundry list of warnings and explanations. Even when a doctor performs an elective surgery, the doctor must give patients a detailed explanation of any x-rays, pre-op photos, and possible risks, no matter how small the risks may be. Doctors also inform patients of any potential alternatives. Given these current and widely accepted standards, it is incredible that a bill similar to HB 200 in Utah has not been made a federal law.
Three Options for Unwanted Pregnancies
Currently, women have three options when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. Option one is, of course, motherhood. In the eyes of a Planned Parenthood supporter, this is a bad idea if a woman is not financially stable or educated. Planned Parenthood backs up this argument by pointing to statistics that show such parenting conditions lead to more crime and poverty. However, there is plenty of information as well as organizations willing to help financially unstable women, such as Women, Infants and Children (WIC), local churches, synagogues, and free parenting classes.
The second option is adoption. Adoption is the least selected alternative and is sadly seen as incomprehensible despite the endless resources. According to the National Council for Adoption, there are more than one million couples waiting to adopt. When a woman considers adoption, a responsible adoption agency will completely review the risks and rewards of the woman’s possible decision.
Then there is the coveted third option, abortion. However, unlike adoption agencies, information is limited once a woman steps through the doors of Planned Parenthood. It would benefit the Pro-Choice community to encourage education, choices, and decisions when it comes to abortion. These additional choices include allowing a woman to see what is growing in her own womb. Unfortunately, there have been several proven claims that Planned Parenthood doctors minimize risks and rarely explain the abortion procedures unless directly asked by the woman.
The Need to Protect a Woman’s Access to Informed Decisions
From my experience working in two pregnancy options counseling clinics in two different states, I spoke with countless women who had previously had an abortion at Planned Parenthood or had visited a Planned Parenthood clinic because they were considering an abortion. Rarely had they received sufficient information regarding risks and options. Our clinic would always inform the woman on the three options if interested. If she asked, we would provide her with information and resources on parenting. The pregnancy options clinic would also review the benefits and concerns involved with adoption if she was considering that avenue. Additionally, if the woman was considering abortion, the clinic counselor would inform her of the different procedure and risks in strict medical terminology. Unfortunately, many women were surprised they had never heard this at Planned Parenthood. Oversights such as these render HB 200 necessary, rather than outlandish.
My account is not the first record of this lack of information being presented at Planned Parenthood clinics. Recently, an undercover crew went to Planned Parenthood to see what kind of information a woman interested in abortion would receive in a counseling session. A copy of a letter submitted to the Wisconsin newspaper, The Journal Sentinel, by Lila Rose of Live Action reveals disturbing findings of a woman seeking counseling described in part in the following excerpt:
“Does it have a heart beat?” the young woman asked. “Heart tones,” the Planned Parenthood counselor interrupted. “Heart beat is when the fetus is active in uterus, can survive, which is about 17 or 18 weeks.”
This is simply false. The prominent embryology textbook, “Human Embryology” by Moore and Persaud, states, “The heart begins to beat at 22 to 23 days.”
Later, Planned Parenthood abortionist Dr. Gary Prohaska told our investigator, “you don’t want to wait” to get an abortion, warning, “You know, women die having babies.”
Providing medical misinformation and manipulating women in such a grave and irreversible decision as abortion is unconscionable. Institutionally standing behind medical falsehoods shows the public that the problems come from the highest levels of Planned Parenthood. Women deserve to know the truth.”
It is also interesting to note that a key argument the Planned Parenthood organization has used when debating the moral issue surrounding abortion is; “If you don’t want one, don’t choose to get one.” It seems that the same argument they champion could be said of the new bill. If you don’t want to see the fetus, don’t choose to see it. The organization should not encourage a choice that ends in a lack of information and more importantly, choices. It also begs the question as to Planned Parenthood’s motive for taking a stand against this new law. It doesn’t seem too far-fetched to infer it may have something to do with the loss of profit that may come with this bill. After all, Lifenews.com states that, “when used in pregnancy centers, ultrasounds are credited with helping more than 80 percent of women to reconsider a decision to have an abortion.” Is it possible to think that a company that earned an income of just over $1 Billion a year (according to their 2007-2008 Annual Report) has a fear that the natural tendency towards curiosity could cause significant detriment to their profits?
Facilitating True Empowerment
The fact that the Planned Parenthood community, which would describe itself as an organization looking to empower women, has a problem with a law that gives women the right to more information and more choices is inconsistent, hypocritical and insincere.
I would like to see the Pro-Choice movement lean towards giving women all information pertaining to the liberty that is legally theirs. I take issue not with women who are free to make their own decisions, but with institutions that push agendas on women without providing necessary tools for informed decisions.
As a nation we need to ensure that women have every opportunity to make educated judgments. Without question, the legally protected option to see an ultrasound of a fetus and increase her awareness of her own body should be granted. True empowerment for women comes not from discouraging the accessibility of information or hiding facts altogether, but from encouraging women to seek out all information that leads to an informed decision. An uninformed choice is no choice at all.
Author: Rachel Raynes
