Ultrasound Bill Not So Sound After All

Pennsylvania's ultrasound bill would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound procedure, after which a photo would be placed within her line of sight. In addition, she would be asked if she'd like to listen to the fetal heartbeat. Obviously, the legislation is intended to make a woman think twice. But instead, the legislature has thought twice, deciding to table the matter.

Here's what the Pennsylvania Clergy for Choice told state legislators:

We Pennsylvania Clergy for Choice urge you to vote NO when HB 1077- the ultrasound bill- comes before the House.

We are clergy of a variety of faith traditions who believe that no legislator with compassion could possibly vote for such a brutal proposal. It is the position of Pennsylvania Clergy for Choice that this deceptive bill with its authoritarian and paternalistic requirements is being proposed for the sole purpose of instilling guilt or shame in an effort to make abortions more difficult, presenting an undue burden for women. It deserves to be rejected by the full House of Representatives. Further it is based on a series of deceptions that we urge you to examine in our following statement.

Orwellian Deceptions on the way to an Ultrasound

In 1949 George Orwell wrote “1984”, a novel illustrated 63 years later when the Pennsylvania House of Representatives crafted HB 1077. This bill, requiring an ultrasound before a woman can have an abortion is classic Orwellian, authored by a privileged Inner Party elite and sold by naming things the opposite of what they are. This paper will explore the bill’s masterful Orwellian deceptions.

DECEPTION # 1, The Title.

HB 1077 is called a woman’s “right to know”, but both the noun “right” and the infinitive “to know” are misleading. The bill does not contain a “right” as used in law and neither does it provide knowledge beyond that obtained by viewing the ultrasound of one’s fetus.

This is an odd and strange bill, a remedy in search of a problem. It proposes to give women a right to view their fetus’ ultrasound, although this right is not now denied. Abortion providers routinely provide an ultrasound to their clients, an inconvenient fact acknowledged by the authors of this bill who try desperately to fashion a mandated right that is not needed.

What is called a “right to know” turns out to be a series of required observations that are demeaning and intimidating. It is immoral and inhuman to impose the bill’s requirements on women. The act treats women as if they are incapable of knowing what is common knowledge. Who does not know that a fetus goes through various stages of development and can be visually represented by an ultrasound?

DECEPTION # 2, The Woman is Not Required to Look.

The inhumane hoops through which a woman must jump begins by the requirement to schedule an ultrasound at least 24 hours prior to an intended abortion. The woman is then positioned physically so she can view the full ultrasound, listen to a heartbeat if present, and have a doctor explain everything that is seen and heard. Of course she doesn’t have to look but not looking requires a very awkward posture. It is as if the legislator is acknowledging that you can lead a horse to water but you can not force the horse to drink. The procedure is a humiliating ritual requiring woman to see, hear and listen and then in pure Orwellian doubletalk the bill states that the woman is not required to look.

Adding insult to injury, the same ritual required 24 hours in advance of an abortion is required again at the time of an abortion. Only this time the legislated requirement is for the image of the ultrasound put in front of the woman is not hers but one provided by the Health Department depicting a fetus that, as near as possible, is the same gestational age as the woman’s fetus. The woman is thus treated like a slow learner who must take the time to see, listen and be told the same facts twice. Moreover, again treating the woman as if she were intellectually daft, the woman must sign the same statement at both ultrasound sittings acknowledging that she is either looking or not looking. We believe HB 1077 should be re- titled “How women are intimidated by an ultrasound when all they want is an abortion.”

DECEPTION # 3, It is No Big Deal

“It is no big deal deal.” wrote a Pennsylvania Representative, an obvious put-down by a male who it is guaranteed will never be confronted by this humiliating treatment. Women on the other hand will very likely find the inconvenience, humiliation and impositions required by this bill to be a big deal indeed. Using language from the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, women will find the provisions of this bill to be an “undue burden” and hence by the wisdom of the Court, unconstitutional.

DECEPTION # 4, Transforming Guilt into “Informed Consent”

HB 1077 rightly states that it is in the interest of the state for a woman to make an informed decision regarding a possible abortion. The bill then asserts that by viewing an ultrasound a woman is in the position of making an informed decision. But that is an Orwellian stretch of the imagination. The only information provided is the gestational age of the fetus. This information is passed off as “informed consent” This one item of information defies the usual meaning of informed consent.

It may be that having an ultrasound presented to her face may experience guilt and regret. But to experience either emotion does not make it a more uninformed decision. A true informed decision involves science-based information coupled with potential moral, financial, social, spiritual and personal considerations. However by the time an abortion decision is made and an appointment established at an abortion provider, the gestation age at that moment is an irrelevant consideration. Contrary to the claim, in this bill there is no information or resources made available by which a woman could make an informed decision regarding her already-scheduled abortion.

DECEPTION # 5, Call It Something Else

In true Orwellian fashion, a fact is called by some other name in order to distort reality and change moral judgment. So in HB 1077 a single definition is erroneously used twice. Fetus is defined as an “unborn child.” For some this may be a distinction without a difference. But both the reality and the language of aborting a fetus has much less emotional baggage than the killing of an unborn child. This manipulation of language is clearly meant to conjured up a moral revulsion against killing babies, an obvious crime. Language matters and the bill deliberately distorts language reflecting its bias. It is a fetus that is being terminated, not an unborn child being murdered. To say otherwise is to reflect a particular religious view of a minority of citizens that is not shared by many other faith traditions and certainly has no place state law.

DECEPTION # 6, Only the State Knows Best.

One of the co-sponsors of HB 1077 made the intent of this bill obvious. He stated, “Someone needs to be supportive of the ‘baby’.” And that, more than a woman’s “right to know,” is what this bill is all about. The state, it turns out, is the someone he believes who must support the fetus in spite of the fact that the State has no constitutional authority to do so at its earliest stages. Throughout history it is the woman and not the tribe, nation or State who has been responsible for the fetus. Women rightly object to the state’s possession of a responsibility that has always been associated with the dignity and meaning of being a mother.

The bill’s co-sponsors assume that when women view the ultrasound of a fetus they will be so moved by the awesome nature of life that they will change their minds and refuse an abortion. But not only is each woman placed in front of an ultrasound screen, wired for sight and sound, without an opportunity to have a spiritual guide or psychological counseling at her side, none of her reasoning for making this decision has changed. George Orwell could hardly have a better illustration of Big Brother at work as she sits confronted and alone with the awesome powers of the state manipulating her emotions.

However, incomprehensibly the State makes four exceptions to the viewing of an ultrasound of one’s fetus; if the fetus is less than eight weeks old, and thus too young for a heart beat, if conceived via rape, incest or the health of the mother is jeopardized. But why these exceptions to a woman’s “right to know”? The fetus bears no responsibility for the circumstances of its conception or for the health of the mother. One fetus with a heartbeat is not significantly different than any other fetus of the same gestational age. If a woman supposedly has a “right to know” why would she not have this same right “infringed” because of her health or the circumstances of conception? The bill is internally inconsistent and morally unsustainable.

DECEPTION # 7 The Bill Treats All Women Equally.

Although it is a constitutional mandate of the state and a requirement of the 14th Amendment to treat all citizens equally, HB 1077 treats women differently in terms of social class. A woman in the middle class may well have advantages of an education, community connections, access to transportation and communication and thereby learning of her pregnancy earlier, securing medical, spiritual and community support, locating an abortion provider and scheduling an abortion and thus be spared the humiliating impact of HB 1077. On the other hand, a poorer woman with access to fewer resources is not as likely to secure an abortion until after eight weeks. Thus the provisions of this act prevail. If HB 1077 is viewed as punitive attempts to reduce abortions then poor women, those less able to raise a child will be disproportionately impacted. If legislators believe HB 1077 is providing information of vital importance, then poor women are disproportionally “blessed.”

It is our responsibility as religious professionals to name these falsehoods that are being instigated by the powerful few against the personal and intimate lives of the many. This bill is morally reprehensible in both its design and purpose. We call on legislators of good conscience to denounce HB 1077 as inappropriate legislation for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.