Following up on our discussion today about the relationship between social movements and public policy, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell withdrew his support of the latest bill requiring a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion. Was his change of heart due to public protest and media attention or due to his own political aspirations? Hard to tell.
See the New York Times latest coverage of the issue here. That article also describes some of the social movement organizations on both sides of the debate.
See John Stewart’s The Daily Show coverage of the issue here.
Fox News has an article describing the protest on Monday. Read that here.
You can also read the AP News story about the protest here
.
This image comes from the Rachel Maddow blog. You can read the blog here. The people standing in the far left of the picture include a faculty member and students from Longwood University.
One of the interesting pieces of this debate was an individual protest conducted by Sen. Janet Howell. Howell proposed an amendment to the personhood bill that would require men to have cardiac stress tests and rectal exams before being prescribed medicine for erectile dysfunction. Although the amendment was rejected, her protest furthered a sentiment into the chambers of the legislature. Howell, as a state senator, already possessed the legitimate power to influence government and had access to the media necessary to garner coverage. She used her political influence to advance a countermovement through a satirical amendment. Whereas movements typically begin with the common man and move upward, Howell was in the midst of the movement, providing an interesting twist on protests. Read more on Howell and her amendment here: http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/health/wellbeing/22729.html
It was very interesting to hear everyone’s thoughts on this issue. I am a little confused, however, about both sides’ arguments.
With regards to the pro-choice side:
1) I heard some interesting sentiments, some of them spontaneous, from the people who spoke out about it during class. The group of people who spoke seemed to be mostly pro-choice. One of the things said after Prof. Fergeson explained the situation in the general murmur that stood out for me was “It’s just meant to guilt women…” While this is obviously true, the sentiment might reveal a contradiction in the Pro-choice reasoning. If an abortion is something that you might feel guilty about, or seeing the budding life (whether it is alive itself or not) growing inside you might inspire guilt, then is an abortion really something that you want to undergo? Wouldn’t a “guilt-free” option be to give birth then put the child up for adoption? It is interesting that the implied sentiment (that an abortion is worthy of guilt) expressed by a pro-choice murmur could actually be pro-life.
2) Pro-choice people call this invasive, but an abortion is also invasive. I don’t know anything about abortion as far as the technical procedure is concerned, but it seems to me that it involves instruments being inserted into somebody anyway and perhaps this is no different. After all, the person is willingly undergoing a procedure that requires instruments like this one anyway. But perhaps I don’t understand the relative pain or discomfort of the ultra-sound wand versus the instruments doctors use for the actual abortion. Also, don’t doctors use a trans-vaginal ultra-sound anyway prior to and during an abortion to see what they are doing and scout the layout of the fetus and what-not? Don’t patients have the option of seeing those ultra-sounds?
With regards to the pro-life side:
1) If it already occurs during the normal abortion procedure, why is the Virginia government mandating their use. Is this just a Pro-life publicity stunt to mandate something that is already common practice?
2) I suppose it is meant to guilt someone into not having an abortion. However, if a person getting an abortion is capable of getting guilted (maybe there is nothing wrong with abortion), then perhaps a simple waiting period where someone simply thinks over the decision to get an abortion would be a much less invasive requirement. This seems to satisfy the desires of the pro-life side just fine.
2) It is obvious that they wish to guilt people into not getting abortions but why would this requirement necessarily do so? I went to catholic school and a lot of people within that system and religion are pro-life. A lot of abortion statistics were thrown around during discussions and one I remember is that 90% of down syndrome or “mentally retarded” (I am not aware if this is the PC term or not so no offense anyone) fetuses are aborted. Perhaps forcing an ultra-sound would lead to increased discovery and abortion of such fetuses. It could also increase the resentment towards a rapist or an unprotected random hookup and could lead to more procedures (the pro-lifer would say it isn’t the “child’s” fault.) Maybe woman will just go across state-lines to get one done. Even if the abortions don’t increase, I don’t see a clear correlation between ultra-sounds in VA and fewer abortions, and the measure, if passed could just be a colossal waste of time for both sides.
Sorry about the late post everyone but I saw this last night after I finished studying for a test and I had a lot of thoughts that I wanted to express on the subject but I also wanted to get some sleep. Thanks for reading and please respond cause I am curious about this issue!
-JP
JP, I think all of your comments on the subject are very valid and I would like to say that personally, I feel that a woman’s right to have an abortion, as far as I am concerned, is protected by Judicial Law and I don’t think it is fair for individual states to add standards and rules to try and discourage a woman’s right to choose. I understand the point that you made under your pro-life argument, however, this forced measure is for women who are ALREADY looking to have an abortion, so I feel that it would not be a helpful preventative action.
In addition, your comments about how feeling guilty for an abortion might be an indication that possibly, an abortion isn’t in an individual’s best interest, and you offer adoption as an guilt-free alternative. However, I would just like to say that putting a child up for abortion for many (including myself) would be almost as guilt-inducing as having an abortion. I believe that the guilt doesn’t necessarily stem from terminating a pregnancy but possibly from feeling responsible for the situation that has resulted in the necessary path of choice.
Personally, I am glad that the Virginian Governor pulled his support from the bill since I see it as a unnecessary measure that would only make a difficult process more difficult. And it wouldn’t even solve anything since it is very possible for a pregnant individual to just cross state borders and get the procedure done in the next state.