Posted on 03/30/2007 7:52:47 AM PDT by Sopater
A personal story about abortion
Friday, March 30, 2007
DEBORAH SCHNEIDER
GUEST COLUMNIST
The March 21 P-I editorial, "Abortion: Insulting women," insulted me.
As a local speaker for the group Silent No More Awareness, I regret my abortion in this state in 1971 when I was an 18-year-old university student. Most women ask for all relevant information before making any medical decision, with the exception of abortion and contraception.
We blindly accept taking pills, patches, emergency contraception and abortion without asking what the current or long-term affects might be to us. It is insulting to suggest that women don't need or want accurate medical information. I wish I had had some of this "insulting unnecessary information" provided by an ultrasound of my baby's beating heart at 18 days after conception.
Maybe I wouldn't have believed it was only a blob of cells at 12 weeks after conception. Maybe I would have been told about the risks and side effects of abortion, so when I suffered a miscarriage, anorexia and clinical depression and other problems, I would have recognized them as the after-effects of a past abortion and sought help. As for the pricey ultrasounds, there are crisis pregnancy centers that offer them by qualified, trained and licensed medical personnel.
Of course, I suspect the P-I's argument isn't so much about money, as it is about not wanting a woman to see the truth of a little human being in her womb and facing reality. Speaking from personal painful experience, keeping a secret of shame for a past abortion for decades is much more traumatic than being shown what your child looks like in the womb. Through speaking with SNMA, I and others tell the uncensored truth about abortion through our testimonies.
As for the lack of necessity for additional regulation, ("It's not like the state doesn't already have laws regulating abortions"), Washington state has no such restrictions because of a 1992 state law, which ensured a woman's right to abortion, regardless of Roe v. Wade. Washington has one of the most liberal laws in the country and constitutional language protecting a woman's right to end her pregnancy, throughout the entire pregnancy up to the moments before birth.
The editorial appeared to me as a veiled attempt at intimidation and deception to suggest to women that somehow what is being considered in other states would have an effect on the women of Washington. An informed woman is an empowered woman, so women should study up on what our state actually allows.
Let's give women access to necessary medically accurate information, including ultrasounds and what happens during an abortion procedure and the risks involved and then give them the time to absorb it, so that they can make an informed, unrushed decision. Most women make an abortion decision out of lack of information, lack of emotional and financial support from the man involved, parental pressure, abortion clinic prompting or lack of confidence in themselves and their ability to take care of a baby.
To limit any information and to keep women vulnerable to intimidation by others, including the P-I Editorial Board, under the guise of concern for women is well, just insulting.
Deborah Schneider lives in Shoreline.
© 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Who is going to pay for the ultrasound? This is just a question.
I'd be glad to help.
I think that's a great idea. However, if you want to make it mandatory that a woman has an ultrasound before an abortion...who would be responsible to pay for it? The only way this will work is if, yes like you said, it is paid for by private donations.
If you google Catholic and ultrasound, you'll find there are mobile ultrasound units in place now. No enough, I am sure, but it seems to be a great service!
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=49523
Out of all the pork that my tax dollars go to, this is one monetary issue that I would not mind.
But that doesn't answer the question as to who would pay for "mandatory" ultrasounds before an abortion.
I don't have a lot of money to throw around, but I would gladly pay for an ultrasound for someone if it meant giving the baby a chance at life.
OK, if the Catholic Church would like to provide this service, fine. I don't see how they could do it throughout the Country for every woman who is seeking an abortion.
Of course you would. But that's not the question. And you know, it wouldn't effect the outcome most of the time, right?
I'm glad you brought that up, because the original editorial was discussing a bill in South Carolina "that would force women seeking abortions to get ultrasounds, and that they must "certify in writing" that they're reviewed the images before they can get an abortion. Ten more states (not ours) are considering similar laws."
I would well imagine that if this bill were passed that the state would either wind up paying for ultrasounds, or forcing abortion clinics to provide ultrasounds prior to performing procedures.
I would propose that the women who are considering an abortion, who would have to pay for the abortion themselves anyway, should also foot any additional expense for an ultrasound. Consider it an a cost of killing your child.
If we are worried about costs then why not defund all of it, abortion included? It would seem to me ultrasound is cheaper than the procedure - so couldn't this be construed as a cost saving measure overall if people decide not to abort?
A worthy charity to give to.
Then you agree that the government should pay.
If the anti-smoking Nazis can make the tobacco companies pony up money for advertising that hurts their business, I think it fitting that PlannedParenthood (responsible for far more deaths than "Big Tobacco") should be forced to pay for accurate ultrasounds.
If women, who could hardly afford and abortion, had to pay for this, then an abortion black market would arise. You can't stop a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant. I'm not saying that some may be saved, I'm just a realist.
They are provided for free or low cost through donations, Preganancy Resource Center is one such place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.