Texas’ New Sonogram Law

Chloe, I really enjoyed reading your post and I agree with many of your arguments, especially the idea that abortion choice should be a matter of personal conviction, not governmental coercion.

You described the new sonogram requirement as “empowering.” I know this was a sarcastic jab at the claims of the pro-lifers out there, but I’m quite confused about their stance. Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, declared the ruling to be a “huge victory for women in Texas” (The Daily Texan). What, exactly, did women win? As you mentioned, I only see a loss of rights here.

I also like that you mentioned the teenage pregnancy cycle and Alec’s comment about how taxing pregnancy can be on the mother (not to mention on young mothers still in the throes of hormonal changes and developing their own identities). I’d also like to bring up the quality of life of the children of teenage mothers. While it usually seems to be taken for granted that life is better than no life, many of the children born to teenage mothers do not live easy lives. According to Adoption Education, “80% of young teenage moms end up in poverty and on welfare.” Just because a baby is born does not mean that it will have a wonderful life. “A study in Illinois found that children of teenage mothers are twice as likely to be abused and neglected than are children of 20 or 21 year old mothers” (Adoption Education).  I’m not saying that the children of poor, young mothers should automatically be denied life, but I personally would have trouble bringing a child into the world if I knew I couldn’t emotionally or financially provide for it. 

However, I wasn’t quite clear on your equating abortion to the death penalty. Abortion entails the loss of life before the fetus (or “baby”) has developed into a fully-formed individual whereas the death penalty is delivered as punishment for the choices a fully-formed individual has made. As Alec mentioned, the fetus is, to a large extent, innocent while death penalty victims are considered quite the opposite (although Texas may not always get it right).  

There was one point you didn’t touch on that I found particularly motivating. With these new restrictions and others (such as the overtly religious pre-abortion counseling in South Dakota), I believe fewer physicians will become abortion providers. And while this is undoubtedly a win for the pro-lifers, I think the quality of care for abortion services will suffer and the “huge victory” Ms. Northup declared will be overshadowed by poorer services available to women. The United States is home to a very capitalistic brand of medicine, where doctors compete for services and accordingly improve their services to attract more patients. This results in medical innovation and high quality standards. If you discourage physicians to practice in a particular field, quality attained through competition will suffer. In short, you will be “forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers,” which U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks says “certainly seems to be at odds with ‘protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women,’ one of the Act’s stated purposes” (Houston Chronicle). I wholeheartedly agree.