SOMETIMES we get so caught up in our causes that we become petty, stupid and dogmatic about them. Such is the case with respect to abortion and the recent informed-consent bill that passed the Virginia General Assembly.
Let us set aside the matter of whether abortion is killing, because it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because as it stands, abortion is legal. Supporters of this bill must separate the question of abortion - and its morality - from the question of whether informed consent is good policy, which it isn't.
According to the bill, which Gov. James S. Gilmore III (R) is expected to sign, women seeking an abortion must be "educated" by their doctors, and cannot undertake the procedure until they've had 24 hours to reflect on it.
This is patently stupid on several accounts. Let's start with the source of the stupidity, the author of the bill. Sen. J. Randy Forbes (R-Chesapeake) sponsored the bill. In his words, "This bill is about information." He goes on to say, "Every woman must have the information to make an informed decision" ("Bill calls for stricter abortion counseling," The Cavalier Daily, Feb. 16).
Duh. And more duh. If this is just about "information," though, why is the period only 24 hours? Shouldn't women soak in as much information as possible? Why not have a one week waiting period with a killer multiple-choice test at the end? Make the required wait one year and you can virtually end abortion, all in the name of information. The plain truth is women who have abortions aren't exactly saying to themselves,"Should I go to the mall today, watch some TV, get an abortion, do my nails? Oh I know, I'm not quite informed about this, but what the hell, gotta live life spontaneously, I want an abortion!" If you're going to have an abortion, it is inconceivable that you haven't reflected on it yet.
It also is curious that a bill on information is only being applied to the issue of abortion. What if a cancer patient wanted to jump into a chemotherapy treatment? Shouldn't there be a mandatory wait period? Of course, we find it so ludicrous that a cancer patient wouldn't seek out alternatives and learn about the dangers and side effects of chemotherapy, that we see no need for mandating such "information" collection periods. That's why it's fundamentally inconsistent to require this of abortion patients, insofar as having cancer and having an abortion are probably equally emotionally taxing.
What a great world it would be if there were lots of mandatory information collection periods. Before you speak, you must collect information for at least 24 minutes. That way, nobody's feelings get hurt and what you say will be more intelligent. How about a 24 hour period of collecting information on the dangers of buying a handgun before you purchase one? Oh wait, many of the Republican supporters of the 24 hour abortion waiting period probably wouldn't support this, even though gun misuse kills people. (Your response that abortion kills babies is still irrelevant. Legally, it's not killing. We can talk about this if and when Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey get overturned. Till then, zip it.)
The bill's supporters aren't really in favor of more information, rather their concern is in chipping away at the legal right to have an abortion. Now, as opposed to before this law was enacted, you legally can have an abortion subject to some attendant conditions, which means the scope of a woman's right to abortion is being limited. The bill's sponsor could, at a minimum, be honest about this, instead of cloaking it in dumb and inconsistent statements about the availability of information.
Even if women are uninformed about abortion procedures, it is not the state's business to act as a patron to women. The information on the risks and alternatives to abortion is out there. This doesn't mean Virginia should force a doctor to talk to his patients about family planning and adoption.
What is to stop the state from forcing me to be "informed" about other alternative religions? After all, I ultimately choose, so it doesn't violate my free exercise of religion and so long as the state forces me to learn about two or more religions, there is no establishment of religion problem. All you have is an imposing state forcing me to "educate" myself on "alternatives" to my religion. If this seems distasteful to you, then so should the Commonwealth's telling women they need to be informed of the alternatives to abortion.
Continue to debate abortion and its legality, but informed consent is bad policy. Unfortunately, the politicians' ideas regarding informed consent are idiotic in that they don't separate one debate from the other.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at jeisenberg@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | 4 hours agoI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | YesterdayAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | YesterdayIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
