…That’s the strategy of many state-based anti-choice advocates when it comes to undermining Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Conn., and women’s reproductive rights all together. Waiting periods, very biased so-called “counseling” sessions, parental consent/notification, physicians being legally forced to tell false information to their patients about abortion and other reproductive health issues, and bullshit ‘women’s right to know’ bills–assuming that women are too stupid to research information on abortion and their reproductive health all on their own, and they need big strong anti-choice male politicians to do it for them. And the list of restrictions goes on.
But these advocates also insist that state lawmakers “protect” pharmacists who get their jollies from imposing their anti-women-having-sex-for-pleasure-rather-than-babymaking-dogma on women, seeking to have their contraception prescriptions re-filled. Then there’s abstinence-only “education“–we already know about that. So what’s the point of Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Conn. if fanatical anti-choice ideologues and their allies in political office will just pass laws undermining them all willy-nilly? (well I know the point of Roe and Griswold and we still them to be upheld by the courts, but I’m just being sarcastic and rhetorical)
This article from Planned Parenthood details the toll all of these anti-choice legislations and tactics have taken on women’s reproductive rights, and it even reminds us the tenuousness of women’s reproductive freedom in this country. Also remembering that in other countries such as in Africa and South America, some women there practically have almost zero reproductive rights, or control over their reproductive destinies. But that certainly does not mean that American women should just ‘shut-up, take it, and be thankful,’ though others would say and think to the contrary. Yes, “thankful” that our reproductive freedom hangs in the balance with a few votes, vague and easily misconstrued words in the Constitution, and a male-dominated government.
[…]It was then, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that the Supreme Court ruled that individual state governments could pass laws that restricted abortions within state boundaries. Abortions would still be legal, but states now had a significant say in the circumstances under which they could be performed.
In recent years, laws requiring mandatory delay periods before an abortion may be performed, coupled with biased, scripted anti-choice “counseling” sessions, have proven especially popular among anti-choice state lawmakers. Such laws, which prohibit women from obtaining abortions until after they’ve listened to a state-mandated lecture and waited anywhere from one to three days, are currently in effect in about half the states.
Increasing Costs and Risks
Pennsylvania is just one of several states where these laws are currently in effect. Because more than 80 percent of counties offer no abortion services at all, most women must travel a significant distance just to reach a provider.
Upon arrival, women must listen to a lecture that includes information about potential medical-assistance benefits for birthing and neonatal care, agencies offering alternatives to abortion, and state-prepared materials graphically describing the “unborn child” and outlining the “possible detrimental psychological effects of abortion.”
After the lecture, women are forced to wait at least 24 hours before they can get an abortion. If the clinic has room in its schedule, the woman may finally receive an abortion when the 24-hour waiting period is up.[…]
A Private Matter
[…]”These laws are insulting to women,” says PPSP’s Steinberg. “They assume that women haven’t thought about what they want to do with their pregnancy until they walk into the clinic, when most women have been thinking about it since after they missed their period, or longer.”
Bill Crowden, associate director of Planned Parenthood of Waco/Central Texas. “These women don’t decide to have an abortion overnight,” says Crowden. “They’ve thought about it, and by the time they come to us they tend to know what they want. The law makes things complicated and inconvenient. But it’s not changing any minds.”
Recent Developments
State governments continue to consider and pass mandatory delay and counseling laws at an alarming rate. In 2004, 25 states considered 130 such measures. Among the measures calling for counseling sessions, 30 included recommendations that health care providers warn women of a potential link between abortion and breast cancer … a link rejected by mainstream medical authorities.
On June 28, 2005, the Rhode Island State Senate approved by a vote of 27-9 the so-called “Women’s Right to Know Act,” which imposes a 24-hour mandatory delay between the time a woman is presented with abortion-related information and the time an abortion may be performed. A proposed amendment to the bill, providing an exception to the 24-hour delay in cases of rape or incest, was rejected.
A Small Victory
Better news comes from South Dakota, where on June 30 a federal district court preliminarily enjoined a law … before it took effect … that would have required doctors to provide women with medically inaccurate information prior to receiving an abortion. Among other false, misleading, and blatantly anti-choice information, the law would have compelled doctors … in violation of their First Amendment rights … to tell women that abortion increases the risk of suicide.
Of course, victories like this are scarce when it comes to biased counseling and mandatory delay laws. But that doesn’t diminish the resolve of providers to expand access to reproductive health services … in fact, it only strengthens it.
And we know that Roberts will be confirmed but everyone is speculating as to exactly how many Dems will vote for him, and what will be the split (if any–I doubt there will be a split, sigh). Then we get another anti-choice nominee from Bush–joy, it just never ends. As for the Roberts hearings for today, he claimed that nothing in his past record and opinions as a judge suggests that he is an ideologue. Well when edited enough before going in front of the committee of course they’re not. And when asked about them, you can just spin them any way you damn well please or refuse to answer for them all together. As already mentioned it’s called the ‘Judicial Fifth’, and he and any judicial nominee has a right to invoke it.
**UPDATE!**: NARAL Pro-Choice America’s release for Day Four of the Roberts hearings.
@Avvaa: I'm not sure even WASP male immigrants are welcome. There have been several tourists who have been detained because…