Argh, I must be more diligent about writing this blog. After all, it is my Chinese New Year's Resolution to do more writing. Bad Word E, bad!
I was reading an article about how the Virginia legislation passed a measure requiring women to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion (as well as include a copy of the ultrasound in a woman's "permanent record"):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/virginia-senate-passes-bill-requiring-women-to-undergo-ultrasound-before-abortion/2012/01/30/gIQAW3MviQ_story.html
I don't want to get into my viewpoint about abortion, because it's not relevant to this conversation. I have only one question to ask: what medical benefits have been
proven when giving a woman an ultrasound prior to abortion? I am approaching this from my perspective as an analyst and a researcher; lawmakers need to create laws that have
proven effectiveness for the welfare of the people. If they start faffing about creating legislation full of hot air to pacify constituents, they only prove why they should be voted into the ranks of the unemployed.
Look, I am willing to consider research showing that over the long term, women who had the ultrasound are better able to accept their decision (regardless of what decision they made). If someone can come to me with solid research showing benefits to women, children and/or families I could even cautiously start to approve of this measure. The thing is, I'm willing to bet there is no available research showing that (after removing all variables) required ultrasounds curtail the number of abortions performed. That pisses me off.
I'm sure someone will say after this legislation goes into effect that there are fewer abortions (because there will be fewer abortions). But they won't be able to prove that abortions decreased significantly when you account for 1) women who went to other states to have abortions to avoid the requirement and 2) women who decided against abortion because of the perceived stigma of "permanent records". Why can't they prove it? because that data won't exist. The same grandstander who quotes the decrease in abortion numbers will also likely fail to mention research proving their assertions about the positive health impacts the requirement will have. Why won't they say anything about the health benefits? because that research also won't exist.
What infuriates me the most is that no one is really getting what they want. The "pro-choice" supporters feel that women are being bullied into not getting abortions in Virginia. The "pro-life" supporters won't save the lives they're hoping to save. It's all chaff and no wheat. *sigh*
On a side (and more controversial) note, I also feel this issue is another failure at eradicating sexism in health care. It's like health insurance covering erectile dysfunction but not female birth control. I have yet to see any data proving that erections are medically necessary but that birth control is not (especially considering the former increases the need for the latter!!!). I'm glad that problem is finally being addressed, but then new issues like this law arise. Pregnancy takes two people, and I say if laws are created to visually document the decision to have an abortion, then both ovum donor
and sperm donor should have a "permanent record". Instead of requiring an ultrasound, how about requiring a significantly cheaper DNA test and putting the test in the record of both donors??? Taking this ridiculous "improvement" of the law to another level, VA State Senator Howell has another suggestion:
require men to have a medically unnecessary procedure for a contentious treatment to share in medical stigma.
PS: note to self: next WWotD needs to be more optimistic.
