Texas Abortion Laws, Part II: The Specifics

Before I get into the specifics of Texas' new abortion laws, I submit this for your consideration.  Texan Carolyn Jones discovered, about 2 weeks after these laws took effect, that her unborn son, if he made it to term, would suffer greatly from congenital defects.  She and her husband decided that the most loving thing to do for him was to have an abortion.  And these laws made that process so much harder than it already was. 

----------------------------------------------- 

Here’s what Texas’ new abortion laws require:

• The provider must inform the woman of the medical risks of abortion; of the probable gestational age of the embryo/fetus; of the medical risks associated with carrying it to term; that she may be able to get assistance for pregnancy, birth, and neonatal care; that the father is liable for child support; and that public and private agencies provide pregnancy prevention counseling and referrals for getting birth control.
• The provider must give the woman “printed materials,” and a web address for the same, as described by section 171.014; the materials describe the “unborn child,” list agencies offering abortion alternatives, and list agencies that offer free sonogram services.
• At least 24 hours before the abortion, she must get a sonogram.  The sonographer must display images that she may view, explain the sonogram (including a “medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, and the presence of external members and internal organs”), and make the heartbeat (if present) audible to her while simultaneously explaining the heartbeat.
• Before the sonogram, the woman must sign an election form (see pages 5-6 of the bill for the text of the form).  This will stay in her file for seven years.
• The woman may choose not to view the sonogram images or listen to the heartbeat.  She may choose not to hear the explanation of the sonogram if she’s pregnant as the result of rape or incest, if she’s a minor, or if “the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality.” 
• There’s no penalty for her or the provider if she chooses not to view or listen to the above.
• If she chooses not to abort, the provider must give her paternity and child support information.
• The provider may perform an emergency abortion without informed consent, but he/she has to document/certify the medical emergency in a few different ways. 
• While fulfilling all these requirements, the woman may not make payments or financial agreements for abortion or related services, except for the services required above. 

And that’s about it.  Bear with me whilst I rant about some of the absurdities: 

The very first thing the woman must be informed of, after the provider’s name, is the medical risks she faces with her abortion.  The amendment specifies 3 risks: possible infection and hemorrhage, potential infertility or danger to future pregnancies, and the possibility of increased risk of breast cancer.  Then, a couple of items down the list, she must also be informed of “the medical risks associated with carrying the child to term.”  That’s all they wrote—no particular risks or health problems are specified, as with the abortion risks.

Some simple searches provided some interesting information here.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in their “Pregnancy Options” fact sheet (part of the Tool Kit for Teen Care), says: “An abortion is considered to be a low-risk procedure.  It is less risky than having a baby.”  Texas lawmakers don’t seem to agree with that medical assessment.  The document does confirm, however, that “Complications may include bleeding or infection.” 

As for infertility and future complications, an obstetrician on the Mayo Clinic's site writes that “Generally, abortion isn’t thought to cause fertility issues or complications in subsequent pregnancies.”  He says some research suggests a possible link between abortion and increased risk of some complications, but points out that complications caused by surgical abortion are rare.  Furthermore, an FAQ document on induced abortion from ACOG says, “Most experts agree that one abortion does not affect future pregnancies.”

As for breast cancer, that same document says, “There is no evidence that having an abortion increases the risk of getting breast cancer.”  Another document—the ACOG’s official opinion, from the Committee on Gynecologic Practice—expands on that unequivocal assertion: “Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed.  More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.” 

It sounds to me that Texas is trying to scare women out of abortions by mandating they be informed about risks that aren’t verified by rigorous studies.  Furthermore, they don’t specify any risks of pregnancy at all that women must be informed of, so I thought I’d see what some of those risks are.  I’m not even going to try to list them here, because this post is too long already.  But take a look at these links: the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health provide a brief overview of risks, and there you can scroll down…and down…and down to read a few very long lists of specific conditions.  The US Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women’s Health provides long lists of prior health problems that can affect pregnancy, pregnancy-related complications, possible infections during pregnancy, and links to other resources on these complications (again, a lot of scrolling down here).  In short: pregnancy has a LOT of complications and risks that doctors are pretty certain about.  It’s interesting that not even some of the major risks are mandated to be part of the information forced on abortion-seekers. 

The amendments also repeatedly referred to “printed materials described by Section 171.014” that had to be provided to women.  This section wasn’t amended, so it didn’t appear in HB 15.  I went to the completelaw, and felt like I ‘d been sent on a wild goose chase.  This section simply describes the languages, typeface, website, etc. of these materials.  (It also says they must use ACOG as one of the sources for these materials—HA!)  It directs us to 171.015 and 171.016 for the contents of the materials.

171.015 is “Information Relating to Public and Private Agencies,” which includes lists of public and private adoption agencies, organizations that offer free sonogram services, agencies that do not provide or make referrals to providers of abortions, and agencies that are not affiliated with abortion providers or those who make referrals to such.  I find that to be very vague, and possibly very dangerous for the women who end up at agencies that harass and berate them even more than the law does.

171.016 is “Information Relating to Characteristics of Unborn Child.”  This includes “materials designed to inform the woman of the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from the time when a woman can be known to be pregnant to full term, including any relevant information on the possibility of the unborn child's survival.”  These must include color pictures of fetuses at “two-week gestational increments,” and “must be realistic.”  And here’s the kicker: “The materials provided under this section must be objective and nonjudgmental and be designed to convey only accurate scientific information about the unborn child at the various gestational ages.”

BULLSHIT!  I CALL BULLSHIT!  This is not AT ALL objective and nonjudgmental!  It’s not like information on gestation is secret and elusive and therefore must be included to ensure a woman’s “informed consent.”  You can walk into any bookstore or library and find plenty of books on pregnancy that thoroughly describe the development of the fetus with realistic, colorful pictures.  You can find it on the internet in your own home or at the public library.  Furthermore, if Texas didn’t have “some of the weakest sex-education programs in the nation,” as Kristof wrote in the NYT, all of its citizens would already be well-informed about pregnancy and fetal development! 

I’ll end with that rant, as this post is outrageously long.  Next post: various and sundry other issues, including the invasive ultrasound.

Dear Pregnant Woman: You Are a Murderer. Love, Texas

The other day I came across the NYT op-ed “When States Abuse Women.”  In it, writer Nicholas D. Kristof describes the new abortion laws that came into effect in Texas about three weeks ago.  You should read his article, because it’s excellently written and gives an overview of similar laws in other states.  He links to Texas House Bill 15, which details the amendments to the abortion laws right down to the deletion of a comma.  So, I decided to read it and see for myself what it mandates.

And…wow.  These 14 pages are among the stupidest and most insulting text I’ve ever read.  Basically, it’s a collection of amendments and additions to their previous abortion laws—which were already disrespectful toward women seeking abortions—adding more degrading hoops for these women to jump through.  This legislation is blatantly and unabashedly attempting to berate and embarrass abortion-seekers, in order to cause them to feel like monsters and decide not to abort.

The nefarious purpose of these laws is encapsulated near the end of HB 15, in a brief description of why it exists: 

The purposes of this Act include, but are not limited to,

(1) protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women

If these legislators really think they’re protecting the “physical and psychological health” of abortion-seekers, then based on the biased information they’re shoving on these women, they’re operating on the premise that abortion is a horrible, horrible thing that is highly likely to cause physical harm and psychological devastation. 

The truth is, if they really want to protect women’s physical and psychological health, they would start by respecting them as autonomous people with the right to choose.  Then they would focus on a) putting regulations in place to make sure that providers are properly certified to care for these women, that the facilities are clean and up-to-date, that the procedures used are safe, and that the aftercare ensures their continued health and use of contraceptives; and b) that the women have access to unbiased, public counseling if they need/desire it, to help them cope with negative feelings they may have related to their abortions and to help them consider and choose the best options for them.  (I say unbiased because a counselor who tries to force her/his views on abortion would do much more harm than good, and I say public because it’s much more likely that private counselors would be biased.)

Instead, these laws misinform women about the possible risks of abortion, giving them much more attention than the more numerous and possible/probable risks of pregnancy; direct them to private agencies that, as Kristof points out, “are often set up to ensnare pregnant women and shame them or hound them if they are considering abortions”; invade their bodies with an unnecessary and invasive ultrasound; use multiple means to humanize the embryo/fetus as an innocent little son or daughter they’re about to torture and murder; and berate and humiliate them for considering such an atrocity.  These laws will prove to be incredibly psychologically damaging, and will also be physically damaging as women and girls choose to carry their unintended pregnancies to term even when the risk to their health and lives will be great.

(2) providing pregnant women access to information that would allow her to consider the impact an abortion would have on her unborn child

See?  They truly aren’t protecting pregnant women from anything; they’re psychologically abusing them by casting them as the mortal enemies of innocent little children.  They are inundated with descriptions of their “unborn child” (not “embryo” or “fetus”) and pictures of what it looks like, with an invasive and privacy-violating ultrasound, and with a pile of literature urging her to do anything besides have an abortion.

And there’s also the laughable (3) protecting the integrity and ethical standards of the medical profession.  The legislators actually claim they’re protecting the doctors’ integrity and ethics by making them force inaccurate propaganda on these often vulnerable women and perform procedures that—as the doctors say—are medically unnecessary.  And, if they don’t do it, they can be fined up to $10,000 (section 171.018) and could lose their license (section 164.005 (a)). 

I’d like to go into more detail, but in the interest of avoiding a giganti-post, I’ll break it up.  Next time: I’ll look at the details of the full laws and how absurd and stupid they are.

Religion should not trump bodily health and well-being.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

From Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution 

Recently, an amendment to a Senate transportation bill was voted—by an uncomfortably narrow margin—to be tabled.  This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), would have allowed any employer to deny health insurance coverage for any procedure or medication they object to for religious or moral reasons.  Again, this amendment has been tabled (killed, effectively), but Blunt swears he won’t give up on the idea. 

There’s also a Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) that would allow any employer to deny insurance coverage specifically and only for contraception.  This bill is in committee; it’s still “alive.”  I don’t think it’s just me—both of these proposals definitely sound like a law respecting an establishment of religion.  The First Amendment is about not only preventing the oppression of religion but also preventing oppression by religion.

Thus, it’s frightening that our country is even having this conversation.  Religious beliefs should not trump someone’s bodily health and well-being, should not prevent someone from getting the care they need, should not threaten someone’s life.  If Rubio and his cosponsors succeed, or if Blunt tries again, all of these things will happen.

Furthermore, their platform is just completely wrong.  One person’s choices and/or prescriptions for their personal health and well-being do not infringe on anyone else’s religious beliefs or morals.  If you have religious beliefs regarding health, medication, and medical procedures, you may certainly apply them to yourself, and more power to you.  But just as “your rights end where another person’s begin,” so do your religious beliefs end where another person begins.  You may not like what another person is doing, but their personal choices for their personal health and life do not affect your beliefs. 

If you’re an employer who provides insurance, that still holds true.  You are under obligation—social, governmental, and moral—to provide health insurance to your employees.  As with the salaries you pay your employees, you don’t get to choose how this money is spent.  This is a personal decision between your employee and her/his doctor.

Would it be right if an employer who was a Jehovah’s Witness refused to cover blood transfusions?  No.   Would it be right if an employer who was a Christian Scientist refused to cover…well, everything?  No.  Would it be right if an employer refused to cover contraception because of his/her religious or moral beliefs?  No.    

This is an attempt to stop people from getting the treatment they need.  I’m sure Blunt, Rubio, et al. are well aware that if an expensive medication or procedure isn’t covered by someone’s insurance, that person won’t be able to afford it and could get very sick or die.  It’s outrageous that they respect the rights of their workers so little that they would let them sicken and die over their religious beliefs. 

Now I’d like to address the more specific anti-contraception bill:  the current debate over not just contraception but also abortion, forced ultrasounds before abortions, the banning of prenatal testing, and the criminalization of miscarriages shows that there is an unfortunately large (or just very loud) segment of the population that believes women to be little more than baby factories.  They have shown that they believe women have less value than the eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses they carry or could potentially carry inside of them. 

I’d think they’d embrace contraception as a means to prevent more abortions, but instead it seems they’re simply trying to force women to live according to their beliefs and completely refrain from non-procreative sex, especially if it’s premarital. 

(An aside: it’s absurd to try to force such values on this society, and they will ultimately fail.  However, I’d like to see them admit defeat on that front sooner rather than later.  Look at our books, movies, television, music.  Look at your family and friends and neighbors, classmates and coworkers.  It’s easy to see that “no premarital sex” is not a value held dear by the majority of our country.  So, even putting aside the innate wrongness of forcing your beliefs on other people, it’s [hopefully] a losing battle to even try in this case.)

I say that they’re trying to force women, not all people in general, to refrain from non-procreative premarital partly for this reason:  not once in all this debate have I heard mention of vasectomies.  This procedure achieves the element of birth control pills that the religious despise:  the prevention of pregnancy, and therefore the promotion of non-procreative, consequence-free sex.  Contraception is extremely important in treating a wide range of health problems in women, in addition to preventing pregnancy; so, since vasectomies really only prevent pregnancy, you’d think they’d be an even bigger target for the religious conservatives.  But as I said, I haven’t heard even one mention of them.

This is indicative of a broader cultural problem in America:  the only people who are allowed to have and enjoy sex are heterosexual males.  They are praised for making conquests, for adding notches to the bedpost, for being virile and having large, potent genitalia.  Women, however, are expected to be virginal and shun sex.  When a woman is seen as sexually active, she is insulted and degraded as a slut, whore, hooker, loose woman, etc.  Can you think of a similar insult for a heterosexual man who sleeps around?  I can’t.

(Another aside:  these demands conflict painfully with our culture’s demand that a woman be beautiful and sexy at all times, and if they aren’t, they’re derided and shunned.  It's very confusing to be female.)

This unrealistic demand for virginal women stepped into the blinding spotlight of Rush Limbaugh’s big stupid mouth last week.  As pretty much everyone has heard by now, he spoke very, very ill of Sandra Fluke, who attempted to testify at a hearing discussing Obama’s rule in our new health care laws that religious organizations must cover contraception in their health insurance (he has since caved and said these organizations have one year to find an insurance company that will cover all of the contraception themselves; thanks a lot, Mr. President).  (By the way, read that link about the hearing.  It was a total farce.  Get outraged with me!)  

Limbaugh called Fluke a slut and said her parents should be ashamed of her.  Displaying a shocking and willful ignorance of how birth control pills work, he said Fluke has so much sex that she can’t afford all the birth control she needs and requires the government’s help.  He also said that she should disseminate sex tapes of herself so others can benefit from her subsidized contraceptives.

First, someone ought to tell that moron this isn’t about his money going to contraception, it’s about employers providing private insurance coverage, so Limbaugh’s argument that he must benefit from paying for her birth control is idiotic.

Second—and far worse—this is incredibly horrible sexism, sexual harassment, and hate speech.  I am absolutely appalled that he said these things, and I’m even more appalled that his punishment and public censure has been so minimal and impotent.  (And I’m appalled that his obviously forced apology only addressed his “poor word choice” and was completely insufficient.) 

I hate what the lack of reaction to his comments says about our culture.  I hate that women have so little value.  I hate that women are not allowed to have sex unless they’re married to a man and trying to have a baby—and even then, there’s still something wrong with them if they enjoy it. 

I also hate that Limbaugh’s words have very directly hurt at least one young woman (besides Fluke, that is).  This 16-year-old girl left school weeping on Friday because some classmates, who had heard Limbaugh’s comments and somehow found out this girl is on birth control, bullied and antagonized her mercilessly, calling her a slut and whore out to f*** all the boys in school.  They were also reinforced by a clueless teacher saying Limbaugh is an icon who isn’t afraid to tell the truth.  I started to cry on the subway this morning reading about how all her mother could do was hold her and cry with her, and share this atrocity in hopes that someday this will never happen again.

This should not be happening.  It’s 2012, not the 1800s or even the 1950s.  We women shouldn’t have to fear losing insurance coverage for our birth control.  (I’ve been on it for 5 years, and for nearly 3 years I didn’t have insurance.  This made my chosen medication cost over $80 a month, so I switched to a $25 generic that still strained my meager paycheck.  I found it was too hard on my body to go without.)  We shouldn’t have to fear losing all contraception entirely, and being jailed for contraband condoms found in a police search of our bedrooms—which will happen if President Santorum (who doesn’t believe we have a right to privacy) gets his way.  We shouldn’t have to fear being unable to have an abortion if we get raped, because we can’t cut through the growing forest of red tape.  We shouldn’t have to fear getting raped again by a state-mandated intravaginal ultrasound.  We shouldn’t have to fear our tragic miscarriages being criminally investigated, and getting jailed or executed if it’s determined that we somehow caused the miscarriage.  We shouldn't have to fear being bullied, condemned, and publicly ostracized for our healthcare needs. 

We shouldn’t have to fear being a woman.  Please, if the choice ever falls to you, choose to protect and uphold the personhood, the autonomy, and the equality of women. 

Return of the blog

In the past few months, I've started paying attention to what's going on in the world.  I've found that this has given me a lot of opinions and a lot of things to say.  This blog is probably the best platform for me to do that.  And maybe I'll keep it going for longer than 3 posts this time around. :)

Please feel free to comment, even if you have a differing opinion.  I'm still learning and would love to discuss it all with you.