A state sanctioned invasion of privacy.

It has come to the attention of my Hawk-like eyes, that in a country already split on many social issues ranging from gun control to gay marriage, the state of Oklahoma in the USA has taken the issue of abortion to dizzying new heights.

The government in Oklahoma has introduced a set of bills concerning the issue of abortion, and have made the already traumatising experience worse. The bills have been targeted by pro-choice groups for being physically intrusive and for breaches of privacy. The bill that has caught the attention of the media both in America and abroad, is one that carries the requirement for an ultrasound less than an hour before the abortion. It would transpire, that this is no ordinary abdominal ultrasound. The woman is required to be given a vaginal rather than abdominal ultrasound, which will give a better quality of picture. This would mean that the woman who is in the clinic for the abortion, already under large amounts of stress and emotional pain, is undergoing a procedure that is medically useless. In addition to this, the doctor performing this ultrasound, must tell the woman what he can see including number of fingers and toes. The bill also makes no exception for women who have been raped or were victims of incest. No provisions have been made and it seems they were simply forgotten.

I will mention at this juncture, that this description of what the doctor can see, does no purpose and will only make the woman feel worse about the decision she has made. Not all women having abortions will be those who have accidentally got pregnant. There will be many women who have wanted a child for many years, however the health of the child and/or the mother is in question. This description of the child's attributes would serve no purpose but to traumatise the mother further.

A more worrying bill is one in which the woman must answer a questionnaire of thirty-eight questions. These include questions asking the age, race, marital status, education, number of previous pregnancies including any miscarriages and terminations and the reason for the termination of the foetus she is currently carrying. These may not sounds much on their own, however the information given will be published on a website. Whilst the name of the woman will not be given, many critics of the bill suggest that in small towns, the identity of a woman could be found out rather easily.
______
You may be able to tell where I stand on the whole issue of abortion. I am wholeheartedly pro-choice. I also feel it is the government's job not to chose a side and to give women the choice whether or not they should have an abortion or. What I mean to say is, making abortions legal and not imposing particular requirements on an already troubled mind. The government, whether it be at a federal or national level should not impose restrictions on certain rights.

I will confirm that you read the word right there. Abortion should be available as a choice so that women are not forced into the decision to have a baby by the state. That is not the state's job.
/controversial statement.
_____

It was mentioned by Democrat Senator Jim Wilson that "The legislature and the senate are acting like an amateur gynaecologist. This is not about abortion. This is about the Bible". Religious views of certain members of government should never be used to form laws, especially seeing as not everyone in the state or country will follow that religion nor will many want to live their lives according to something written in a 2000 year old book. One which has questionable origin.

Back on track to the issue at hand, you'd think that there would have been many who opposed the bills due to one of them breaking the confidentiality that doctors are supposed to observe. Patients expect their doctors to behave impartially of private beliefs and they want to live safe in the knowledge that their medical history will not be published on the internet. I was under the impression that this expectation was a given but it may be something that the Oklahoma government (and the doctors in Oklahoma) need to be told until the message gets through.

Luckily, these bills have been subject to large amounts of criticism and have been temporarily blocked. Those in favour of the bill suggest that women should have "all of the information available before she makes the irrevocable decision to terminate her pregnancy". This includes the National Right to Life Committee, who also believe that the bills are constitutional.

However, the bill was passed after six days due to large amounts of criticism and legal battles. Many anti-abortion campaigners say that the bill humanises the process, allowing the mother to connect. What they probably mean is, it acts as an emotional weapon against the mother. By focusing on the foetus due to be aborted and giving it a face, we forget the mother. The mother who has a life already and is making a concious decision. This bill, by it's very nature assumes that all women who seek abortions are simply women who got pregnant accidentally and can't follow through with what they've gotten themselves into. Abortion cannot be legal in a state while it demonises the women seeking them. Women in this situation are caught in a catch-22, where if they have the abortion, pro-life campaigners will demonise them further, whereas if they keep the baby and need state support, people will look on them unfavourably, especially if they are young.

I hope that in time, it becomes apparent that if a woman is seeking abortion, she will do better to not be demonised by her own state. A woman with a whole life of her own, should not be made to feel inferior to a potential life.