Abortion bill is hypocritical

Monday, March 9, 2009 | 1:03 p.m. CDT

It's always a little strange to pick up a newspaper and find that 163 people have been discussing just what to do about my uterus. But that is what the members of the Missouri House of Representatives were doing last week.

An abortion-related bill was passed by a vote of 115-41 (7 abstained), much of the legislation relating to the myriad things a physician would have to tell the Missourian uterus-owner in question before an abortion takes place. Though this pedagogy is ostensibly done in the name of "informed consent," the reality is that most of the requisite “informing” (e.g. about any distinguishable physical characteristics Little Johnny Fetus might have) is part of an overwrought scheme to guilt-trip and vilify the woman until she decides not to have the procedure.  

Unsurprisingly, the House is trying to keep everyone's attention on another part of the bill that seems much more noble in purpose. The headline referencing the bill under the "House News" heading on their Web site reads, "House Gives First-Round Approval to Bill Criminalizing Coerced Abortions." Underneath is a vague mention to the manipulative "informed consent" portions of the bill that make up more than half the near-4,000 word count of the document. 

The great irony of this bill is that the portion relating to coerced abortion contains this clause: "All information shall be presented in an objective, unbiased manner designed to convey only accurate scientific and medical information." Unbiased, they say. 

Meanwhile, the bill also stipulates that a physician give any woman who wants an abortion either written or visual materials that "prominently display" this statement: "It is the public policy of the state of Missouri that the life of each human being begins at conception, and that unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being." So while representatives are outlawing coerced abortion, they're essentially mandating that the physician try to coerce the woman into giving birth — and hardly in a scientific manner.

Scientists rarely use the emotionally loaded term "unborn child" instead of "fetus." And last time I checked, there was no absolute "medical" consensus on when life starts. It's absurd that a state can have made a public policy about such a philosophical question. (Has Missouri based its environmental policy on decisions about whether a tree makes a sound if it falls in a forest when no one is around?) And it's downright hypocritical to demand unbiased behavior in one portion of an abortion bill and then force medical professionals to harass patients with entirely subjective material in another.

There is also the question of privacy to consider. The protection of privacy was the linchpin in Roe v. Wade, after being established as constitutionally protected in the Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. In the latter case, the court ruled against Connecticut legislators who were attempting to outlaw the use or supply of contraception for anyone, husbands and wives included, and upheld a couple’s autonomy in the “sacred precincts” of the bedroom.

In Roe v. Wade, those “sacred precincts” were extended to include a person’s insides. But somehow, though women are exercising a legal right when they decide whether to have an abortion, the Missouri representatives backing this bill are trying to deny women the same autonomy in that decision-making process. The state legislature is publicly discussing and deciding exactly how the "private" consultation between a woman and doctor will go.  

The decision in Roe v. Wade also makes stipulations about when states can regulate abortions. In summarizing that case on its Web site, the anti-abortion Missouri Right to Life coalition is forced to plainly come to it: “Abortion cannot be regulated in any way which does not enhance a woman's health.”

Certainly outlawing "coerced" abortion is a healthy practice (though concentrating on that portion of the bill is to give great limelight to a relatively rare and dramatic occurrence). The parts of the bill which mandate that a woman is told about medical risks associated with an abortion also satisfy this requirement.

But how does hearing Missouri's philosophical musings on the birth of the human soul enhance a woman's health? How does watching the bill's requisite video of the development of a fetus from conception to birth (presumably with a mawkish scene of familial dedication at the end) make a woman healthier?

In fact, blood pressures (certainly including mine) across the state might significantly decrease if those 115 legislators would put a hold on their hypocrisy and respect women's right to make a private decision instead of hounding them with bully tactics.

Katy Steinmetz is a columnist and reporter for the Missourian. She moved to Columbia after spending two years teaching in Winchester, England, and one year in Edinburgh, Scotland. She has freelanced for a variety of publications, including 417 Magazine in Springfield, Mo., and the Guardian in London. Katy plans to complete her MU master's degree in 2010.


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Pam Pochel March 9, 2009 | 6:42 p.m.

thank you, thank you, thank you for your reasoned and logical column on something that is simply illogical.

Your excellent words are greatly appreciated!

(Report Comment)
Jay Nies March 10, 2009 | 9:49 a.m.

And wouldn't it be nice if law-enforcement officials and bystanders would mind their own business and let a man shoot a pastor in church? Who are they to tell him whether that's a person in the pulput or just a large blob of tissue holding a Bible?
I'm sure that if Justice Blackman, author of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, thought about it for a while, he could have read the "right to privacy" into the Kennedy Assassination. The fact is, no one's right to privacy trumps another person's right to life. And since, as you say, we can't say for sure when life begins, it would be far better to err on the side of caution.
That's what informed consent is all about.

(Report Comment)
Katy Steinmetz March 10, 2009 | 12:06 p.m.


I think the main difference between your examples and the function of privacy and choice in cases of abortion is that Kennedy was not, I think we can all agree, inside Oswald's uterus at the time of the former's assassination. Neither would the pastor, cancer-curing doctor or nun (or whichever hyper-innocent and pure hypothetical victim you choose) be inside your murdering man's uterus.

There are no legally protected "sacred precincts" for those men (or similar) to call upon, whereas, like it or not, the precincts of a woman's body have been constitutionally protected as within her realm of autonomy - and the Missouri legislature should respect that binding decision of the Supreme Court rather than try to find ways to weasel around it.


(Report Comment)
Hope Lambert March 19, 2009 | 7:06 p.m.

So I have to say that I'm not surprised thst the Abortion Bill was passed. I may not be a scholar on abortion, but I do that it's wrong and that I feel very strongly about"aborting" abortion itself. These young lives need some one to stand up for them. They obviously can't speak up for themselves. I mean come on you guys. What everhappened to pick on someone your own size. If anyone here has ever read up on any abortion statistics you know that they're ratherstartleing. Atleast considering that this is supposed to be an"ok" procedure to have. Thet literally put these women in stalls next to each other. There's no operatingroom. Just a row of what looks like a bunch of barbor chairs. Seriously...go check it out. By the way...If we could ask them if they wanted to live or die, I'm pretty sure they'dwanta chance at the world they're only hearing.

(Report Comment)
Annabelle Hamilton April 8, 2010 | 5:48 p.m.

When you are in uncomfortable position and have no money to go out from that point, you will need to take the <a href="">credit loans</a>. Just because that would aid you for sure. I take secured loan every year and feel myself great just because of this.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.