Friday, May 28, 2010

Ultrasounds & Abortion

Oklahoma's recently passed restrictive anti-abortion laws may backfire, at least in part. One of the laws requires that women be forced to look at an ultrasound and hear a lengthy description of the fetus. The idea is that women will be shamed out of having the abortion. In Alabama, where women are given the option of viewing the ultrasound (admittedly, not directly comparable), there has been no decrease in abortions.

In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests that such an approach backfires, particularly for younger embryos and fetuses. Embryos do not look like humans, and that can be reassuring when deciding to terminate. Opponents of ultrasound requirements worry that it will emotionally scar women without actually changing their minds, but data from England suggests that's not the case. Seventy-three percent of women in those studies looked at the ultrasound when given the option, 84% of those said it did not make the decision more difficult, and no one changed her mind about having it done.

It is the second law that I actually find more disturbing. This law prevents a woman from suing a doctor who intentionally hid information about birth defects while the baby was in utero. There are many non-abortion related reasons to know about birth defects before a baby arrives. (As a reminder, Sarah Palin had prenatal tests to confirm a disability in her child.) Even without that fact, I am appalled by legislators making it legally acceptable for a doctor to lie and mislead a patient about anything. That's how you end up with situations like the Tuskegee Experiment.

No comments: