From an abortion-rights perspective, arguments about abortion are almost never about the act itself. They’re about how it is perceived. Often, advocates of abortion argue that the other side exists only to further sexism and control. This isn’t about the rights of all human beings; it’s about women’s autonomy.
The Kentucky abortion case has unearthed some particularly bizarre lines of argumentation. After the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal to Kentucky’s law requiring that mothers who undergo abortions first view an ultrasound, abortion-rights advocates were up in arms about the odious thought of mothers watching their offspring in utero.
“Mandating transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortion care is not only medically unnecessary—it’s violently invasive,” NARAL Pro-Choice America tweeted. “This law shames women for accessing basic care.”
(For inattentive readers, the addition of “transvaginal” to “ultrasounds” makes the procedure sound much more ominous than it is. The “Ultrasound Informed Consent Act” says nothing about whether the ultrasound must be transvaginal or transabdominal.)
A writer at the Los Angeles Times called the law “dangerous and intrusive.”
Two health professionals wrote an article for NBC with a similarly scaremongering headline: “Kentucky abortion law affirmed by the Supreme Court disguises coercion as ‘informed consent.’”
Government coercion is a scary term until you realize that in this case, it’s just talking about showing a woman what’s going on inside her body.
But this is not only coercive, the authors argue. It’s also, of course, sexist: “Women deserve to be treated with dignity. Assumptions about their inability to make complex informed decisions about their body independently is, fundamentally, misogyny.”
It takes a good deal of mental gymnastics to turn more information into less power. Yet this is the best argument that abortion advocates can come up with. Want women to have the facts? You’re sexist.
The entire essay is full of irony, as the OB-GYN and emergency physician argue that women expect “unbiased, medically accurate information,” as if the image of a baby is necessarily partisan.
“We must not be fooled into thinking that the Kentucky law enhances informed consent in any way,” they conclude. “This is meant to erode autonomy and trust. It is political ideology masquerading as medicine. What it is not is health care.”
Besides the idea the legislators behind the law might hope that women change their minds about ending their pregnancies, the authors can’t express anything particularly concerning about requiring that a pregnant woman experience an ultrasound before undergoing a life-altering procedure.
What’s the real problem with the law? It’s that abortion-rights advocates don’t want abortion to seem like a big deal. This is how comedian Michelle Wolfe describes it in her latest stand-up special: “If it’s a big deal for you, it’s a big deal. If it’s not, it’s not. Both are correct,” she says. “My abortion, not a big deal for me. I left work, I got an abortion, I drank half a LaCroix, and then I went back to work.”
If you get through an abortion without ever seeing an image of your unborn child, it’s easier to pretend that it’s as harmless as going in for a check-up.
This argument isn’t about government control or coercion. It’s about a very inconvenient bit of information.
