The right not to know - One Woman's Ordeal with Texas' New Sonogram Law

**witchcurlgirl** · March 22nd, 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by monk

I'm pro choice all the way however I can respect the feelings of those who feel abortion is an ethical decision that should be made carefully as an informed decision. To me this means a second opinion on the sonogram and a clear description to the mother of what the condition of the fetus would be. In this woman's case she is someone who fell between the cracks. But say the mother is open to the idea of raising a disabled child. Say the child would be born missing an arm or with that lobster claw deformity. If the mother found out after having an abortion that the child wouldn't be in pain and could live a happy and productive life she might feel angry and devastated that she wasn't duly informed about the condition of the fetus. This article reads like a "charmed life" kinda gal having to deal with the reality of aborting an unhealthy fetus. Even her comments about her husband having to sit in a waiting room under a domestic violence poster had me rolling my eyes. As if every second of this was traumatizing. If the woman was informed in the first place she wouldn't have chosen a Catholic hospital. In a regular hospital she could have scheduled the abortion after the first sonogram. It's only that she had to go elsewhere that it became an ordeal. Anyway I think the law is designed to protect and inform the mother. I don't see what's so bad about it. But I haven't read into it much, I admit.

No, you aren't, as the rest of your post here indicates.

This law is designed to penalize women, not protect and inform. End of story.

**twitchy2.0** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:00 AM

. Because women are stupid and cannot be trusted to educate themselves or make informed decisions on their own. They have to be told.

**monk** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:00 AM

I am pro choice. And maybe I'm misinterpreting the law, but I would think an informed description of the fetus is an ethical medical step that would be done in any other medical procedure. As I stated I'm not very informed about the law. So I'm not supporting it per se, I just don't understand why it's wrong to inform a woman about the condition of the fetus prior to having an abortion?

Are you suggesting that a woman can inform herself about the condition of the fetus in her body? How? Any information is a good thing. This particular story is one that was unusual because her first stop was a Catholic hospital. What the sonogram specialist did in the hospital is pretty much the same thing the woman in the abortion clinic did? Isn't it? It's only that she had to go elsewhere to have the abortion that it was repeated again.

**Mel1973** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by monk

I'm pro choice all the way however I can respect the feelings of those who feel abortion is an ethical decision that should be made carefully as an informed decision. To me this means a second opinion on the sonogram and a clear description to the mother of what the condition of the fetus would be. In this woman's case she is someone who fell between the cracks. But say the mother is open to the idea of raising a disabled child. Say the child would be born missing an arm or with that lobster claw deformity. If the mother found out after having an abortion that the child wouldn't be in pain and could live a happy and productive life she might feel angry and devastated that she wasn't duly informed about the condition of the fetus. This article reads like a "charmed life" kinda gal having to deal with the reality of aborting an unhealthy fetus. Even her comments about her husband having to sit in a waiting room under a domestic violence poster had me rolling my eyes. As if every second of this was traumatizing. If the woman was informed in the first place she wouldn't have chosen a Catholic hospital. In a regular hospital she could have scheduled the abortion after the first sonogram. It's only that she had to go elsewhere that it became an ordeal. Anyway I think the law is designed to protect and inform the mother. I don't see what's so bad about it. But I haven't read into it much, I admit.

Well, since this woman WANTED the child, every moment WAS traumatizing. And no, you can "just get an abortion" right after one sonogram in just every hospital that isn't Catholic. And, NO this law is not designed to protect and inform women! It's set up to shame, humiliate, guilt, punish and penalize women for thinking they have a fucking say in what happens TO them and their body!

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

No, you aren't, as the rest of your post here indicates.

This law is designed to penalize women, not protect and inform. End of story.

Thank you, I almost popped my "like" cherry on your post!

**monk** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:05 AM

I am not up on the law but I don't understand why a law is passed to humiliate women. I thought the law was designed to protect women who did not have prenatal care prior to having an abortion.

**MontanaMama** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:06 AM

You are wrong. Go educate yourself some.

**monk** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:08 AM

This is what I found. It seems that this woman was not legally required to hear the description due to the exception made for "fetal abnormality"

The Texas law, enacted in 2011, requires abortion providers to display the ultrasound images and describe them in detail. While a woman seeking an abortion can decline to view the legally required ultrasound, she cannot decline to hear the physician's description of it unless she qualifies for an exception due to rape, incest or fetal abnormality.

Court allows Texas law on ultrasound before abortion | Reuters

**twitchy2.0** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:10 AM

If you read the article, her procedure was done at a time when the law was quite new and regulations on how it was to be implemented were not clearly defined.

Originally Posted by monk

I am pro choice. And maybe I'm misinterpreting the law, but I would think an informed description of the fetus is an ethical medical step that would be done in any other medical procedure. As I stated I'm not very informed about the law. So I'm not supporting it per se, I just don't understand why it's wrong to inform a woman about the condition of the fetus prior to having an abortion?

Because it isn't informing the woman about the condition, it's to inform her about the stage of development. It isn't done for any medical reason. If that was the case, the doctor would just do it, it wouldn't be mandated by people with a clear political agenda. Again, it assumes that women are stupid and need to be told.

It in no way protects women. Poor or otherwise.

**MontanaMama** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by monk

This is what I found. It seems that this woman was not legally required to hear the description due to the exception made for "fetal abnormality"

Court allows Texas law on ultrasound before abortion | Reuters

So what you're saying is that you did not read the actual lead article to this thread.

**Mel1973** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by monk

This is what I found. It seems that this woman was not legally required to hear the description due to the exception made for "fetal abnormality"

Court allows Texas law on ultrasound before abortion | Reuters

And here's what the original article says: I noticed that the Department of State Health Services had issued technical guidelines four days after I'd been at the clinic. So for three weeks, abortion providers in Texas had been required to follow the sonogram law but had not been given any official instructions on how to implement it. Again, I asked the agency about this, and a spokesman replied as follows: “No specific guidance was issued during that time, but clinics were welcome to ask questions or seek guidance from their legal counsel if there were concerns.”

The doctors HAD to proceed the way they did because they had not been given guidance, just a fucking law to deal with.

**monk** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:14 AM

That's a problem. It seems the Planned Parenthood doctor dropped the ball. The woman wasn't legally required to hear it. Although I think it's not right to insist that a woman should be forced to do anything she doesn't want to do. What sense does that make. She should have the right to decline hearing it, because as the article says, she's having an abortion so it's irrelevant anyway.

**twitchy2.0** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:15 AM

You're contradicting yourself

**Mel1973** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by monk

That's a problem. It seems the Planned Parenthood doctor dropped the ball. The woman wasn't legally required to hear it. Although I think it's not right to insist that a woman should be forced to do anything she doesn't want to do. What sense does that make. She should have the right to decline hearing it, because as the article says, she's having an abortion so it's irrelevant anyway.

No, the doctors had not been given direction on how to follow this law to the letter until 4 days AFTER this woman's abortion. The real problem is the law going into effect AT ALL, let alone going into effect without the proper stipulations, exemptions and such.

**monk** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:19 AM

I guess, like I said I'm not too informed about it. I just didn't like the way the woman wrote the original article. It seemed manipulative to me. Both sides of the debate resort to emotional arguments when they are making their case. To me it's more offensive, as you say, for women to be treated as if they can't make a decision. I don't mind the option of having the information given to the woman. But she should be able to decline. The part where the law says the woman is forced to hear it is wrong. I thought the doctor was just required to "say it." That would be a different law IMO But forcing a woman to hear it is bullshit.