Utah Republican Lawmaker Pushing for Invasive Ultrasound Bill in 2010
Rep. Carl Wimmer, Republican lawmaker in Utah, certainly doesn’t want to make the already difficult decision to have an abortion any easier for women. In fact, he is in the midst of pushing through a bill for the 2010 legislative session seeking to amend the state’s informed consent law. In the status quo, Utah abortion law requires that women be told they have the right to view an ultrasound (as if they didn’t already know that).
Unfortunately for women in the state of Utah, Wimmer is pushing for more invasive restrictions that would dramatically challenge a women’s right to choice. Rep. Carl Wimmer’s bill would require that a doctor provide an image of the fetus on an ultrasound along with a detailed description of what is on the screen.
Although this so-called attempt at establishing a “bond” between a mother and her fetus is still optional, the very idea of this legislation is cloaked in anti-choice language that views women as agentless and incapable of coming to their own conclusions about what is best for their bodies and their lives. Despite the fact that this bill remains seemingly optional for women seeking an abortion, it is most certainly a part of a larger anti-choice agenda to coerce women out of choosing abortion. Wimmer makes his agenda pretty damn clear in a quote on his website,
“Once that bond is established, researchers argue, a woman no longer feels ambivalence towards her pregnancy and actually begins to feel invested in her unborn child”
This also isn’t his first run around with enacting legislation that significantly limits women’s personal choices. Wimmer has worked with groups such as ‘Americans United for Life,’ implementing legislation that requires doctors to describe the so-called pain that a fetus goes through during an abortion. You know… that fetus with less cells than a finger nail.
This also isn’t happening in a vacuum. According to the Guttmacher Institute, several states have included ultrasound provisions in their laws during the past decade. For example, the attorney general in Oklahoma is currently pushing for an appeal to the ruling by the State’s Supreme Court that struck down a controversial ultrasound law. Here is a little preview of how ultrasound legislation has sneaked its way into law throughout the country,
Its records show eight states, including Utah, require women to be counseled about ultrasound services. Fourteen states have a mix of laws either requiring ultrasounds or that women be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound if it is going to be performed as part of the routine preparation for an abortion.
What irritates me the most is this pervasive belief that women don’t already go through difficult mental and physical challenges in determining whether or not abortion is the right choice for them. Regardless of how difficult of a decision it may be, it remains a decision that each woman should have the autonomous right to make on her own. And let’s be real; sometimes the decision isn’t as difficult as it’s cracked up to be. Some times… it is probably the easier decision, particularly in comparison to the alternatives.
You should join me in getting in touch with Rep. Carl Wimmer and letting him know what a giant douche he is.
1Christopher
wrote on 30 December 2009 at 16:54
Isn’t it the “pro-lifers” who are so concerned about the mental health of a women who chooses abortion? Yet another example of why I’m glad I left the GOP.
2aj
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 1:07
Glad to hear you left the GOP Chris. Very smart decision. And your absolutely right. Anti-choice advocates love to make the claim that abortion traumatizes women, however, they love to enact legislation that would do just that. Hypocrisy at its best.
3Shani
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 10:40
How is giving the woman details of what she is surgically removing from her uterus invasive? If a woman sees the baby, and decides to keep the baby, what is wrong with that? It sounds like you are the anti-choice people. How can a woman make the decision to abort intelligentally without knowing exactly what she is doing and being fully informed? Your comments and the article sound as if you don’t want the woman to see for fear she may choose to carry the baby. That is so backward. If someone chooses to abort, then what they see shouldn’t bother them. If it does, then maybe they shouldn’t abort.
4Peggy Tasler
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 13:02
What is the problem with presenting all scientific information, including ultrasound? I think women are smart enough to evaluate all of the information and make the right choice.
5Lisa
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 13:10
The problem I have with some of the pro-choice crowd is their insistence to trivialize the fact that it is a human life that is being stopped. “You know… that fetus with less cells than a finger nail.” It’s as if size determines importance. Interesting how a virus gets people wanting more information.
I also don’t get why some of the pro-choice crowd is adamant about not allowing full disclosure about options and what happens during and after an abortion. Many women receive more information about what can happen when getting fake nails than what happens with an abortion.
I also don’t get the scare tactics about a pregnancy ruining someone’s life or parents will be angry. I’m not naive to think that going through with a pregnancy will be all hunky dory, but I’ve seen too many people scared or pressured into thinking abortion is the only option instead of having the option to sit down, think, and deal with what is going on with people who are and can be supportive. I’d rather see a young woman make a more rational than emotional decision when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
It may be a woman’s choice, but she shouldn’t have to go it alone and without the option of full counsel like a lot of girls I have seen. The mantra of “My body, my choice” really shoves some young people in a corner thinking they have to make this decision alone. Sometimes going beyond oneself can open opportunities that were unknown.
It’s a shame it has to be a political agenda on both sides of the issue because a lot of young people are suffering the consequences. It’s also very sad when Planned Parenthood would rather splash a donation page when someone may actually be seeking help right now and has to dig for information. I clicked the Teen Talk button of your blog and it sent me to the glitzy, polished donation page.
If we really want to help someone, we need to look beyond what you or I would choose and be honest about what can happen and about human development. That would be real choice. I see and hear too much vitriol to be helpful. Perhaps it is human nature to be divisive. Neither of us is right. Unless we look outside ourselves, then we are only pushing our own personal agendas.
6erin
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 13:19
it’s simply more information. i do not understand how it limits choice, especially if the fetus isn’t considered a person. if women choose to have an abortion after seeing an ultrasound, then they really chose it rather than were scared by their situations into it.
7dave
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 13:22
i think the GOPers are concerned about the woman’s trauma AFTER the abortion. a tiny bit of trauma before (seeing an ultrasound… most find it fascinating) far outweighs the trauma of an abortion. have you had one? or seen an ultrasound? my wife went through that… abortions are much more traumatic than ultrasounds.
8Wade
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 14:30
This bill will not make it any less legal to have an abortion, nor will it place any further physical or financial impediments in a woman’s possible desire to abort her baby. All this bill says is that before you abort a baby, we want you to know exactly what it is that you are doing; often a mother does not realize how far along the development is. Many women, when shown ultrasound pictures, often say “I had no idea my baby is that far along; if I had known that I never would have wanted to abort him/her.”
You claim that you want women to have “choice.” What greater choice can there be than to be aware of the full implications of their action? Are you afraid that after viewing the sonogram some women will make the CHOICE that they don’t want to abort their babies? Why does that bother you? If you are against women even having the knowledge of what it is that they are actually aborting (read: killing), then you aren’t really for “choice” at all.
And if you are afraid that it will make the woman conflicted: if she indeed realizes, as she should, that the “fetus” is nothing less than a human life, isn’t that her choice as well?
9aj
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 20:55
The point isn’t that the bill itself limits women’s choices…. it is more about the language in which this legislation is couched in. Wimmer’s objective is to systematically increase restrictions on women’s choices bit by bit. If this legislation is in no way-shape-or-form invasive… then Wimmer, as well as the commenters above, would have no problem with the law as it already stands. Women know that they have the option to see an ultrasound.
that is exactly why this legislation is messed up — it is completely in line with how anti-choice advocates feel about women…. that they are irrational and uninformed. It is completely pathologizing. Women who make the decision to have an abortion do not need Republican men in their state passing legislation to “encourage” them to check out their fetus before they abort it. That is completely dehumanizing and it is part of a larger sexist perspective of women as agentless and brainless baby makers.
10laura
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 21:32
Abortion is the easier choice by far. But, ultimately it is the worst choice. The pain and anguish felt years later when you meet children or adults the same age as you aborted child are hellish to say the least.
11Manda
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 23:14
Can we be over this myth that all women regret their abortions and feel pain and guilt for years to come? Some do, most don’t. Please stop using the “OMG pain and anguish FOREVA!!!!” excuse to limit women’s rights, because it’s just NOT true.
http://www.imnotsorry.net/archive1.htm
Nancy (in reference to her adoption of 1968): “It’s hard to convince others about the depth of it. You know, a few years after I9 was married I became pregnant and had an abortion. It was not a wonderful experience, but every time I hear stories or articles or essays about the recurring trauma of abortion, I want to say, ‘You don’t have a clue.’ I’ve experienced both and I’d have an abortion any day of the week before I would ever have another adoption-or lose a kid in the woods, which is basically what it is. You know your child is out there somewhere, you just don’t know where. It’s bad enough as a mother to know he might need you, but to complicate that they make a law that says ever if he DOES need you we’re not go9ing to tell him where you are.” (Fessler, Ann. The Girls Who Went Away. p 53)
Hey, look at that! Women regret their adoptions for years and years! Maybe we should outlaw adoption?
12Peggy Tasler
wrote on 31 December 2009 at 23:25
Information is power. The more information the better. I trust women to make the right choice when they have all of the facts. We need to have informed consent for surgical procedures. I don’t view that as limiting. If it would change a woman’s mind about the abortion, so be it. Choice means choice and the more information the better choice.
13aj
wrote on 2 January 2010 at 1:16
@Laura – I’m sorry, but I don’t think you get to universalize that opinion for all women. I know plenty of them who don’t regret their abortion one bit. In fact, their lives worked out for the better because of it. Plus…. I think it is a big load of crap to assume that ALL women (or even a few for that matter) form some “natural” motherly bond with a fetus growing inside of them. In addition, I would venture to say that the pain and agony of raising an unwanted child is pretty damn painful. Oh but I forgot…anti-choicers don’t give a rats ass what happens once you’re out of the womb.
@manda – I completely agree. There are a lot of choices that we may, or may not, regret throughout our lives. It shouldn’t be a justification for limiting women’s autonomous right to determine what happens to their own bodies. Plus, as you say, that logic could apply to anything; simply because SOME people regret adopting children…. doesn’t mean we should restrict everyone’s ability to make that choice. Hence the point of, I don’t know, freedom of choice. We are the only one’s who have to live with our decisions. Period.
@Peggy Tasler – I’ll repeat what I already said in response to the commenters above; the law, as it already stands, offers women the option of evaluating an ultrasound. The legislation that Wimmer is pushing through is couched in anti-choice language that seeks to institute mandatory ultrasounds. This comes from an incredibly pathologizing perspective that views women as completely irresponsible decision-makers. I stand by my argument in the article; women are smart enough to figure out what decision is right for their own bodies and lives. Pretending like we need a bunch of bureaucratic politicians to force ultrasounds down their throats in order to “inform” them about the costs and benefits of an abortion is absurd.
14Shani
wrote on 3 January 2010 at 12:11
Adoption is a completely self-LESS choice while abortion is completely self-ISH. That’s all it boils down to. Why is it ok to kill someone because they are inconvenient? This is truly a sad state when we raise our children in a society that tells them they are expendable. The survivors are lucky they weren’t an inconvenience. Ou yeah, what a solid foundation for our children.
Lisa, you’re right… it is a shame it is a political issue. It is an embarrassment to the USA that we legalized murdering the innocent.
15Manda
wrote on 7 January 2010 at 13:55
Sorry Shani, but you are completely wrong. Adoption is not selfless at all. Think about it: You accuse women who get abortions of seeing a child as a mere inconvenience, but couldn’t the same be said for adoption? If a woman doesn’t see the child she gives birth to as an inconvenience, then why does she give it away to be someone else’s responsibility?
Abortion is not selfish at all. “About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html). Those women aren’t thinking of themselves, they’re thinking of the children they already have to care for.
I feel really sorry for you that you can’t see the reality of the situation and can’t find it in yourself to have a little more respect for women.