A new law in Oklahoma requires women who seek an abortion — including when the pregnancy results from incest or rape — to (i) have an ultrasound performed; and (ii) have the fetus described to them (source). (Apparently, a few Oklahoma lawmakers have been watching too much television, where everyone goes all gooey as soon as the woosh-woosh-woosh noise starts and that unrecognizable, grainy image pops up on the tiny monitor. <cueViolins>”It’s a GIRL!”</cueViolins>)
"Don’t force your morality off on me! Or else I'll squirt this gel all over you!"
Not particularly shocking news, coming from the buckle of the Bible Belt. I wonder, however, if anyone has considered the First Amendment implications. Can the state require an ultrasound tech to describe the fetus? Not if some pro-choice tech doesn’t want to.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
As someone who has seen the grainy image and heard the woosh-woosh, I can confidently say that this policy would be effective. It does turn you all gooey.
Now, is it a First Amendment violation to compel a tech to describe the fetus? I’m not sure. We can require licensed professionals to disclose certain facts, right? I couldn’t figure out if this was a criminal statute or a licensing regulation. But, that would certainly make a difference to the analysis.
Good point. If having to state facts is a free speech violation, so is requiring them to tell you you have HIV after testing you. But somehow, we would all want that. Because it’s their job to tell you facts. I don’t think this is a 1st Amendment issue, personally.
Well I’d guess those facts they have to report aren’t all that impressive and leave a lot of wiggle room. I remember our first ultrasound and I really couldn’t make out much.
It certainly makes a big difference if the tech describes the fetus as a lump of tissue approximately 5 inchs long and weighing about an ounce, vs a tech saying “look there you can see its little hands”. Both may be correct descriptions. So I’d be curious to know what ‘facts’ they have to report.
Aww, Marco, you’re right! When I heard the “woosh woosh” of the suction, I went all gooey with relief that I wouldn’t have to carry my rapist’s baby to term.
Thanks for putting into words what you as a man (I assume based on your username) must know better than any woman faced with an unwanted fetus in her abdomen. ^^;
My reading comprehension skills were off when I read the OP. I thought it said that there was an exception for rape and incest. It actually says the opposite.
Nevertheless, in your rush to be all bitchy about it, I think you missed my point completely.
I agree that the motive behind the law is to fuck with a girl’s head, so that she will be influenced to choose to carry the fetus to term. It could be characterized as psychological abuse in circumstances where the woman is seeking to abort a fetus that got dropped off by a rapist or her own father.
My point was that the tactic would likely be effective, without endorsing it.
I also wonder what would happen if a woman decided to stick her fingers in her ears and go lalalalalalala while they described it. Does the law say anything about being required to actually listen?
Do you think this will run afoul of the “undue burden” test in Casey? I vaguely remember that providing information, even if skewed towards preventing abortion, isn’t an undue burden, but I’m not 100% on that.
grrrr… This is exactly the propoganda America I referred to, Marc & Satyriconistas. The entire abortion issue is so clearly propoganda against women I can’t believe women are so easily convinced about this pro-life bullshit. Motherhood is difficult. Motherhood w/o wanting to enter it is even worse. This is a crime towards women because it fucks with their minds. There’s no greater sin than manipulating those who are weak or confused and vulnerable and that’s what this is designed to do. It takes women at the height of their vulnerability and then kicks them harder. Other programs designed to nudge the female exist it angers me to think about it. Bastards are those who believe in a God and the sanctity of life yet justify their goddamn wars on the already living. I’m unconvinced unborn life is as precious as it is sold when the born life has less and less value, increased use but less value. We say the human life is valuable but we act like hypocrits to our own scrips. Of course, I have a womb. What do I know of its use and value?
We argue equality yet the very base of it sits the right to live. We argue for those unborn, those with no voice and fuck over those who can’t provide fresh canvas minds ready to manipulate. Those are the real people whose potential has become known. I’m sorry. I believe in abortion and every day thank the women and men who fought for it. When a woman looses her logic to her reproductive system, she is enslaved to the emotions other control so easily. Get goo-goo at a fuzzy screen? Perfect. Let the social guilt download begin.
Aside from the general misogyny of this law, it is based on a fallacious assumption: that women who seek abortions are unaware of the gravity and implications of the choice. It’s as if the Oklahoma lawmakers think women are out there saying, “Oh, it’s Tuesday again. Mani/pedi, abortion, then pick up some cat food.”
I don’t have a wealth of experience with women who have had or sought abortions, but my understanding is that it’s never an easy or snap decision. Forcing them to watch an ultrasound is simply a mean-spirited way of trying to make a woman feel guilty (or guiltier) about making what is already a painful choice.
I agree. However, it is an absolute certainty (I think) that this law would be “effective.” Meaning, for every 100 women that had to deal with this, I would say that 5 would be complete sociopaths who wouldn’t care. 5 would be dealing with bigger problems (rape or incest) and thus would be able to balance the horrors. 10 would probably change their minds. The remaining 80 of them would probably cry their eyes out, and have recurring nightmares and psychological issues from it.
I’m personally very anti-abortion. However, I wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice those 80 women’s mental well being for the 10 children who would otherwise be born. In fact, as much as I personally abhor abortion, I like living in a country where abortion is allowed.
No offense, but just because a woman has determined that an abortion is the course of action she will take and doesn’t begin to cry or otherwise react to seeing the ultrasound of the fetus, does not in any way make her a sociopath. You may personally abhor abortion, but your bias shows in your assessment of the situation.
As Dan said, it is simply a mean-spirited way to make a woman feel guilty about an already painful choice. For some it is not so painful a choice, some women simply do not want to have children. This is their right and decision to make. If abortion does not bother them, if they do not regard it as “killing a human being” that does not make them uncaring, sociopathic, or anything else.