A new law has gone into effect in Missouri that requires women contemplating abortion to be told some medical facts. From the story:
But in the meantime, the process of getting an abortion in Missouri has changed. Starting this week women seeking an abortion in Missouri will:
- Be asked if they want to hear the fetus’s heartbeat.
- Be told that fetuses may feel pain, and they will be offered anesthesia for the fetus.
- Receive a pamphlet with the words, “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”
All of the above is required by a new law that took effect Saturday. The new law also requires clinics to ask if women want to see an ultrasound, something Brownlie said Planned Parenthood already does.
It seems to me that most of this information is indisputable biologically. The heart starts beating at the embryonic stage of development. The lives of all of us began with the completion of the fertilization process. Abortion does terminate the life of a genetically unique, living–albeit still developing–human being. Whether that matters morally, some would say, is a different issue, and it doesn’t matter legally after Roe v. Wade. But a fetus is a human life, not a tumor or an intestinal blockage, and women should be so told.
The fetal pain provision, however, seems not to be supported by biology–unless the abortion is at a later stage. Also, offering anesthesia for the fetus, which would be of no efficacy in the earlier stages of pregnancy, isn’t medically warranted. Thus, I think this isn’t right (again, assuming it isn’t a late term abortion) because the law is requiring doctors to offer a non efficacious intervention.
Still, the point, it seems to me, is to ensure that women exercise their choices with full information (in the hope, I have no doubt, that fewer women will decide to terminate). I think a state has a right to take such a position in its public policy and favor the choice of life.
September 3rd, 2010 | 12:41 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: New Missouri Law Requires Informed Consent About Fetal Humanity Before Abortion » Secondhand Smoke A First Things Blog http://t.co/wavTNhR [...]
September 3rd, 2010 | 2:14 am
This law is entirely rational. the only people who could be against it, are those who want abortions to continue, without the this inconvienent thing called “facts” getting in the way.
It’s a funny thing about facts, though. they tend to interfere whether we like it or not. And, as you poited out, Wesley, the biological facts, concerning the fetus, are beyond rational dispute. But they’re politically dangerous to the Pro-choice crowd. Clearly, the more people know, about the humanity of the unborn, the less likely they are, to obtain an abortion.
But this could be devastating PR for the Pro-choice community, so we should expect, lawsuit, after lawsuit, to prevent something, that’s most ironic for a “prochoice” community to try and prevent: informed consent.
September 3rd, 2010 | 2:14 am
It is “indisputable biologically” that the embryonic heart might start beating as early as the 5th week of gestation but asking a woman seeking an abortion if she would like to hear it seems more like emotional manipulation than providing “informed consent” (reminds me of the Onion Video “New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting an Abortion”).
I doubt very much that women considering abortions think the fetus is a member of some other non-human species. The words “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being” would not be interpreted (by them or by anyone else) as the bald statement of a biological fact. It instead serves to foster an erroneous perspective i.e that each biological human is from conception a participant in “the human condition” and that “humanity” is (in and of itself) morally significant.
September 3rd, 2010 | 2:36 am
Forgive me Wesley but all this is starting to sound like a twilight zone movie and “IT” is enough to drive any body crazy. Offering anesthesia to a fetus, that alone to me is saying, look Satan we’re doing what you want us to do which is kill these humans and their cells so please give us a little help here cause humanity is started to get wise to us usual evil sinners and personally many humans are starting to not care for too many of us that which as evil sinners we hunger for hate and anger but the sting Ma is starting to get to us so please help us out or else, we’re going to take a chance with this so called Jesus and His Trio Family, combined of Mother, Father, Son and His Uncle who goes by the name of The Holy Spirit ever since Jesus died and came back to life about two thousand years ago. Many are starting to believe including atheist that This Jesus is for real and could really cure what ales them. To top “IT” all, they are starting to associate this Jesus with Victor, Lord and Redeemer and “IT” has to be stopped by whatever evil mean at our disposition or we’re doomed to repeat “IT” all for Eternity.
Wesley, this to me also reminds me of a so called friend of mine who was not ready for marriage but he jumped in and Satan got a hold of his wife and made his life a living hell because she was posses by Satan and he went crazy after she just laughed at him when he count her having sex with his boss. Because every body loved him so much, he only got eight years for choping her up as if she was nothing but a pig and this happened over thirty years ago.
Please folks, help yourself before spiritual sinner vic is allowed to destroy humanity with the help of Alien Gods who really need our planet and think that our God is really not powerful or loving enough to protect this planet but between all Saints, Angels, Prophet and all other followers who have a sincere heart, evils don’t stand a chance as long as we do our best to keep the faith and please our God who is truly all Loving, all Powerful and very slow to anger.
I’ll close by saying that I wish, hope and pray that all souls and spirits are not responsible for this untold destiny on our humanity.
I hear ya! There’s nothing wrong with you Victor, “IT” is the rest of the word. :)
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Peace
September 3rd, 2010 | 10:11 am
I don’t think anti-abortion factions are helping their credibility when some non-science is mixed in with what they’re calling “medical facts,” specifically:
“- Be told that fetuses may feel pain, and they will be offered anesthesia for the fetus.”
Any support for that? At what point of the gestation have nerve endings and the brain developed? And the whole bit of offering anesthesia for something that may have no working senses smacks of emotional manipulation.
‘- Receive a pamphlet with the words, “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”’
Again, mostly a matter of definition. The word “separate” will certainly send PP up a wall. If it’s a separate being, then it can live without the mother, right?
I mean, aren’t these women going through enough turmoil without having to filter propaganda out of the “medical facts”?
I’m all for informed consent. But including inaccuracies and emotional manipulation in the consent is disingenuous at best and may undermine the anti-abortion position.
September 3rd, 2010 | 12:32 pm
…it is the show-me state
September 3rd, 2010 | 7:31 pm
If the new law prevents one abortion it’s worth it.
September 3rd, 2010 | 9:18 pm
OR mom-Again, blatant hypocrisy. It’s okay to passively kill cancer patients by denying them medication, but it’s not okay for a woman to have an abortion in her eighth week of pregnancy. I am against abortion too,. but your priorities are, IMO, REALLY screwed up.
September 4th, 2010 | 4:35 am
Raven, sorry, but I just don’t see how ASKING a mother if she wishes to hear the heartbeat of the fetus, constitutes “emotional manipulation”. The only way that one can make a proper decision, is to have all of the facts at hand.
It seems to me, that the prochoice side is fearful, that if women have all of the facts they might make the “wrong” decision. So much for freedom of choice.
September 4th, 2010 | 12:31 pm
Bret,
What useful information does listening to the fetal heart provide to the woman? It presents her with no extra facts (certainly with no information relevant to the decision at hand). The patient may, of course, request an ultrasound or an opportunity to auscultate the fetal heart sounds if she desires this but these investigations do not give her any “facts” she did not previously possess.
I have discussed this at length elsewhere (in response to a question posed by Don Nelson, I think) – and it is unquestionable that this is an attempt at emotional manipulation. You might argue that it is a justified attempt to sway women away from abortions but, honestly, no one can reasonably assert that this has anything to do with “informed consent”.
It would help to think of something less controversial. Think about cardiac surgery. If each patient contemplating surgery, were routinely informed, over and above the usual recitation of risks and possible outcomes, that “human life is important and precious and cardiac surgery endangers this life. x number of people died on the operating table last year and y people died soon afterwards due to post-operative complications. Would you like to see a video clip of the last fatal procedure?” this would probably dissuade several from going through with their operations (without giving them a better understanding of the procedure or its outcomes that they would have derived from the standard talk).
I agree that the state is well within its rights to engage in this sort of manipulation. If we feel that certain outcomes are desirable, we ought to use all non-coercive methods at our disposal to achieve them. No women are forced to do anything under this legislation, no one’s rights are infringed – but a lot of women might be swayed into making irrational decisions for emotional reasons – decisions which are bad for them and not for “the pro-choice crowd”. (I would imagine that pro-choice groups are concerned with “access” i.e that people who actually want abortions are able to get them. I do not see what they gain by encouraging abortions).
[It would also help to think about the reverse situation: suppose another state passed a law requiring doctors to read out a brief statement to all women who present in the first few weeks of pregnancy: "Pregnancy may be physically and emotionally stressful for the woman and her family. x number of women develop complications during pregnancy annually with y women losing their lives during childbirth each year. Abortion completely eliminates the risks we've just outlined. Would you like to hear the screams of a woman giving birth?"
Informed consent, no?]
September 4th, 2010 | 12:42 pm
safepres, quit stalking me. Your emotional, irrational, knee-jerk reactions to my comments keep you from having any clue about who I am or what I believe.
September 4th, 2010 | 3:20 pm
Stalking you? This is a commentary feature in which people express their opinions. When you express yours, you can expect to get responses countering your own. If you consider that “stalking” then I suggest you go and write comments on another website. I’m not saying that you should censor yourself, but I am saying that you can’t express a controversial opinion and expect people not to respond.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Note: Everyone is welcome here, so long as they remain within respectable boundaries. Sharp elbows, yes. Personal attacks, no. Carry on.
September 4th, 2010 | 6:09 pm
Raven, when a woman obtains an abortion, obviously, it’s a decision that’s irreversible, therefore, why not have ALL available information? true, hearing the heartbeat, will not convey any factual information, that pertains, in a logical sense, to her decesion. But decesions of this sort, seem to demand more than that. We’re not robots. Certainly, if a woman is deciding whether of not to put her child up for adoption, asking her whether she wants to hold the child, could be helpful, for her, in making her decision?
And if the fetus, is not really a person, then what’s the worry that the woman will be emotionally manipulated? It seems that she could only be emotionally manipulated, if one presupposes, that the fetus, is a human person, just like us, and can evoke all of the emotional responses, that all other humans do?
As for your statement, that doctors, maybe should point out the risks of pregnancy, why not? I’m all for people having as much information, as possible, before they decide whether to make a life altering decision.
The reason, that we probably would not say life is precious, to the heart patient, is that she already knows this, with respect to her own, and any other postbirth person. And no life will be intentionally taken, during her heart procedure. Clearly, though, providing as much protection as possible, is important here, too, though.
Many women experience considerable regret, at having an abortion. Therefore, why not provide them with all the information necessary, so no regret will occur, later?
It does puzzle me, why this causes such fear, in the prochoice community. No one’s being forced to listen to the heartbeat, of the fetus. No one’s being told they cannot have the abortion.
September 4th, 2010 | 7:27 pm
Raven, when a woman obtains an abortion, obviously, it’s a decision that’s irreversible, therefore, why not have ALL available information?
As you note in your very next sentence, listening to fetal or embryonic heart sounds provides no “information” relevant to the decision she intends to make.
Certainly, if a woman is deciding whether of not to put her child up for adoption, asking her whether she wants to hold the child, could be helpful, for her, in making her decision?
Entirely different situation. The child given up for adoption continues to live and provide a focus for her emotional attachment. The mother needs to be able to decide if she can accept separation from a child who will continue to exist as a potential object of affection. Apart from that, a mother who has gone through pregnancy has already made a great investment in the resultant child, the state’s duty to urge careful consideration is, in this case, much greater.
And if the fetus, is not really a person, then what’s the worry that the woman will be emotionally manipulated? It seems that she could only be emotionally manipulated, if one presupposes, that the fetus, is a human person, just like us, and can evoke all of the emotional responses, that all other humans do?
The fact that something provokes an emotional response has nothing to do with its personhood. A woman might be emotionally attached to her dead son’s favourite toy or to her pet goldfish. Neither of these could be considered “persons”. This is an example of the more general fallacy of assuming that ones reaction to an object or person is an accurate reflection of some real attribute or quality possessed by the object (and not merely of our perception or interpretation of it). A man who finds members of another race revolting imagines that they deserve his disgust. A lover strumming away at the base of his maiden’s tower imagines that his ardour somehow proves that she possesses qualities worthy of admiration. Fallacious reasoning, Bret.
As for your statement, that doctors, maybe should point out the risks of pregnancy, why not? I’m all for people having as much information, as possible, before they decide whether to make a life altering decision.
But should they be mandated by the state to do so (in the manner I described)?
The reason, that we probably would not say life is precious, to the heart patient, is that she already knows this, with respect to her own, and any other postbirth person.
Women thinking about abortions are similarly aware that the embryo/fetus is biologically human.
Many women experience considerable regret, at having an abortion. Therefore, why not provide them with all the information necessary, so no regret will occur, later?
When someone makes a bad decision due to insufficient information there is always a hypothetical point at which that person could be imagined thinking “if only I had known about X I would have done things differently”. Listening to fetal heart sounds provides no indication of how the woman will feel about the procedure 5 years on. I doubt there are any women out there thinking “if only I had heard those heart sounds I wouldn’t have gone through with it”.
It does puzzle me, why this causes such fear, in the prochoice community. No one’s being forced to listen to the heartbeat, of the fetus. No one’s being told they cannot have the abortion.
The pro-choice reaction to this should not be puzzling at all. A mandatory statement about “fetal humanity” issued with the imprimatur of the state provides no extra information but sends a very clear message to the woman at the cross-roads that an abortion is something the state would rather she didn’t have. It tips the scales by appealing to the woman’s emotions rather than her reason. Now this is all fine and dandy if you want to discourage abortions because you feel that they are morally grievous acts which ought to be discouraged even if the woman involved would be better off going through with one. If, on the other hand, you feel that most abortions are by and large morally neutral, your primary interest is that all actors make the most rational decisions (with all the relevant information).
Note that no one here is advocating the restriction of information. I’m just saying that even though the state had every right to enact laws of this sort they should first of all make sure that the information passed on to women is, in fact, scientifically accurate and then drop the ridiculous claim that this is about “informed consent” . This is an attempt at emotional manipulation. Some might say it’s in a good cause but, come on, let’s call it what it is.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Raven: You’re from the UK, so your system is different: But do you think a state (or a country) should have the right to have a policy that prefers that people refrain from a legal activity like abortion? Or, should the public policy strive to be neutral? That question is open for everyone, obviously.
September 4th, 2010 | 10:08 pm
[...] Missouri’s new law requiring informed consent (in more detail than had been required) prior to an abortion went into effect on August 28.http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/09/02/missouri-abortion-landscape-changes-new-law/ Here is Wesley Smith’s commentary. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/09/02/new-missouri-law-requires-informed-conse… [...]
September 4th, 2010 | 10:48 pm
Raven, is it legitimate,for me to infer, that you would have no propblem with this law, as long as it only required the mother to be asked if she wants to know all of the factual information, and does not contain, what, in your eyes, constitutes emotional manipulation, such as asking if they want to hear the heartbeat?
Clearly, you come at this issue from the standpoint that the fetus, while biologically human, has no right to life. But for those of us, like myself, who believe that the fetus, does have moral worth, and therefore killing her is a grave injustice, we reach an impasse quickly, here, I’m afraid. I respect your position, but it’s my view, that, since the fetus, is a distinct human being, one is depriving her, of her future life, by killing her. You argue, that, the fact that the fetus has no prior mental life, means that it’s morally permissible to abort her. I consider “prior mental life”, to be irrelevant. The fact that she’s a developing human, who WILL have a mental life, is of relevance. But we’ve covered this ground before, and you’ve provided respectable arguments, for your side.
My point, which I did a very poor job of articulating, in saying that, it seems strange, that those on the prochoice side, would worry so much about about “emotional manipulation”, since, according to them, it’s not a being, that’s likely to produce such attachments anyway. Certainly, this argument, if presented as a deductive argument, would be fallacious, as you state. But it’s more about the likelihood, of emotional attachment arising, from something that’s not worthy, in prochoicer’s eyes, of moral consideration. True, people get attached to all sorts of crazy things, but, if people, for the most part, get attached to something, this could be evidence, in favor of there being something legitimate about it. Not necessarily, as you point out, and one would need further evidence, but it’s something to investigate further.
As for Wesley’s question, it’s questionable, whether a government should take a position, on something that’s legal. There’s a danger, that legislators will want to merely please their constituents, who favor something that’s irrational. Just because something’s popular, doesn’t mean it’s right, obviously. So, if it’s based merely on the majority of people supporting it, that’s not enough. As Burke pointed out, politicians owe their constituents their judgment, most of all.
However, if the latest scientific evidence, indicates the truth of something, such as that smoking is bad for one’s health, or that fetus’s are human, and abortions are obviously bad for THEIR health (!), legislators can, have a bias, against bad practices.
September 5th, 2010 | 2:02 am
Wesley: I feel the state should, if it is able, discourage legal activities which happen to be undesirable for social, health or economic reasons if this involves no coercion. Public health policies to discourage smoking are, as Bret points out, good examples. US states have every right to enact laws of this sort (if they reduce the frequency of actions most members of the public disapprove of). What I take issue with is the ridiculous description of this as an attempt to present women with “all the information”.
Bret: I would have absolutely no problem with this law if women were to be given access to factually correct information outlining the precise nature of the procedure being contemplated along with its risks and benefits.
As someone has said before, “the emotions are not skilled workers”. Our emotional attachment to children is derived not from the inherent “legitimacy” of this feeling (or of the objects which provoke it) but rather from the fact that these feelings were evolutionarily advantageous. A statue doesn’t become morally considerable because a man is sexually aroused by it (and we feel no need to investigate the issue further). Similarly an embryo does not become morally considerable because its heart sounds affect a woman powerfully.
The specific issue here isn’t our respective views about the moral status of the fetus. It is our evaluation of the nature of the law under consideration. If it had been simply acknowledged “We’re appealing to their emotions. We’re appealing to their humanity. Hopefully some will realise the moral seriousness of the choice they are about to take.” – I would have said “I might not agree with your methods but you’re well within your rights to do so”.
Casting this as an attempt to provide “informed consent” however seems disingenuous – as does the attempt to pre-emptively malign the law’s critics.
September 5th, 2010 | 5:25 pm
Raven, I would disagree with you, if you believe that the legitimacy of the government’s disapproval, for an action, is derived from the majority. as I’m sure you would agree, the legitamacy of something cannot be determined by votes.
September 5th, 2010 | 11:05 pm
i hate to tell you all this but without informing women about any of these things they think of them on their own, since i am 20 and myself thinking of getting an abortion, i have a full time job an got to college full time, its wonderful that all of you are thinking of the child, but did any of you think that many people who have them could not give the baby if they had it and none of you think of what could happen to those children, and what happens to their mothers, you tell me where in my life i have time to fit a child, or even better where i would be able to even provide since i work for minimum age, and can barely take care of myself on my income. have you taken the time to think of the women who make this decision and fall into depression knowing they made the right decision, but wishing they had a better option, or even better why not tell them you will care for all the children they don’t want or can’t care for, the world is not made of roses, people make decisions based on what they think is best. I think that by asking a women if she wants to hear the heartbeat you are trying to coerce her to keep the baby.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Coerce? No. Touch her conscience about what is actually being done. Yes.
September 6th, 2010 | 1:23 am
Bret,
You’re confusing different issues here. The government has a right to carry out actions in support of majority opinion (if this is done in accordance with established procedure and within the confines of the law). This is not a judgement about whether that majority opinion is, in fact, “right”. Governments exist to effect the will of the people, and if effecting the will of the majority does not involve infringing on the rights of the minority no one has a right to complain.
Elections are a classic example. I might insist that a presidential candidate is ignorant and unqualified but if a majority votes him in after properly conducted elections I am hardly in a position to dismiss the result because I think they chose wrongly. Democracy is about listening to “the voice of the people” even if they happen to be saying something we’d rather not hear.
With regard to the Missouri law, my position (as I have stated earlier) is: “I understand its intention, I disagree with its implementation, but I recognise the state’s right to pass laws of this type”.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:14 am
jpc465, please contact Catholic Charities in your area about adoption or go to their website http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/netcommunity/adoptionwebsite
You don’t have to abort your baby because you can’t make a home for him or her right now. There are literally thousands of couples waiting to adopt an infant. It’s a decision you won’t have to feel depressed over. You don’t have to be alone in this.
September 7th, 2010 | 10:12 am
Raven, I certainly don’t dispute what you’ve just said, in your last comments. Obviously, in a democratic republic, the majority decides, who’s elected. And if she wants to stay in office, she’ll want to implement policies, that reflect the positions of those who put her in office.
But my point, is that the real statesman, as opposed to a mere crass politician, will want to determine what policy should be, on the basis of the rational arguments, and scientific evidence in favor of the policy. Obviously, pragmatic considerations come into play, in that one must get fellow legislators on board, which may require considerable compromise.
September 7th, 2010 | 5:06 pm
With respect to the ‘this is just propaganda’ folks, here is additional detail from the article:
“It requires clinics to tell women that by the 22nd week, a fetus has all the anatomical structures to feel pain. This is contested by Sumners and other abortion-rights supporters, who point to studies that say a fetus is not developed enough to feel pain until a later stage. Brownlie said Planned Parenthood does not do abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy.”
Also, saying they “may” feel pain, or “have the anatomical structures to feel pain” is not the same as saying they “do” feel pain. I have read a testimony by a doctor saying there is evidence of pain being felt as early as 8 weeks. There is controversy on all the ‘facts’ surrounding abortion, because it is a political issue. That doesn’t give abortion providers an excuse to keep women in the dark.
Many women have an abortion do so because they are not ready to have children YET. Therefore, there is likely a time in the future in which those same women will learn all about their ‘wanted’ developing child. How about the emotional distress they are going to feel if they did not know these facts before the abortion, but now do? I did not know anything about the developing baby before I became pregnant for the first time. My feelings on abortion and miscarriage completely changed after this education.
Thanks to all those who don’t want to emotionally distress us poor womenfolk, but please don’t get on your soap box and decide what information we should or should not be exposed to. Abortion is a huge decision, the details of which are rarely discussed in our society. We deserve full disclosure of what we are getting into.
September 8th, 2010 | 6:50 am
Since the overwhelming majority of abortions take place during the first trimester it’s absurd to require that someone inform those patients about fetal attributes in the late term. It’s obvious that this so-called “informed consent” law is aimed at discouraging choice, rather than providing useful information.
September 16th, 2010 | 11:23 am
OR mom, you stated, “There are literally thousands of couples waiting to adopt an infant.” Why should this create any obligation on a woman to give birth to a child they do not want. There are literally thousands of children in foster care who need a good home. Those people who are waiting for an infant don’t seem to feel an obligation to those children who are already born and living among us.
“It’s a decision you won’t have to feel depressed over.”
This is a misleading statement. Many women experience depression and regret over giving their child up for adoption. Sure, none of them “have” to feel depressed over the decision, but someone chosing abortion does not “have” to feel depressed over that choice either. They may or may not feel depressed about either choice based on their own situation and beliefs about the matter.
September 19th, 2010 | 11:36 pm
[...] requires abortion clinics to notify women of the humanity of the unborn. (Hat Tip: Lashawn [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact