The bill is practical. It requires abortion providers to ensure that women know:
The name of the physician who will perform the abortion.
Medical risks associated with the abortion, including psychological risks.
Probable gestational age of the unborn child.
Medical risks associated with carrying the child to term.
The opportunity to view an ultrasound and hear the heartbeat of her child, whether in the abortion facility or in another facility free of charge.
Whether the doctor has malpractice liability insurance.
The location of the hospital within 30 miles that offers obstetrical or gynecological care and where the doctor “has clinical privileges.”
This legislation is no different from protections the government currently provides in other areas. New real estate laws require a due diligence period for homebuyers, during which time they can change their minds and get their money back for any reason. I recently spoke with a friend who discovered that his 73-year-old neighbor had used his entire life savings to buy an annuity that would not be available to him for 10 years. Fortunately, the 30-day “buyer’s remorse” window had not yet expired, so he received a refund. In many states, this protection is called a “free look” law.
How much more should those seeking abortions be given a period of time to gain more information and seek more counsel – particularly in light of the fact that there is no rescinding this decision and especially because some women have serious and debilitating regrets after an abortion?
In our a society, consensus continues to grow in regard to abortion. More Americans oppose elective abortion than at any time since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Among Protestants living in America, there has been a gradual but steady increase in opposition to abortion over the past 30 years, according to research by Hoffman and Johnson (2005). Catholics have maintained a fairly high level of opposition during that period. Another study highlights the fact that a majority of all Americans (51 percent) consider themselves to be pro-life (Gallup poll, 2009).
Even for those who define themselves as pro-choice, why oppose legislation that would provide women the time and resources to fully consider all of their choices? Through this simple, noncoercive law, a woman may learn about community resources that could provide financial and emotional support should she choose to carry her child to term. It is possible that this new law would help women and their families envision their lives without abortion.
Woman’s Right to Know legislation is an essential and missing protection for women. No one considers the due diligence period on buying a home to be an insult to the homebuyer. “Free Look” laws are not considered overly burdensome to folks who have bought expensive new life insurance policies or annuities.
Why would we value the life of an unborn child and the mental and emotional health of a woman any less than these?
Traci DeVette Griggs is liaison to the Christian Life and Public Affairs Committee of the Baptist State Convention of N.C.
