Anti-abortionists prescribe new restriction

IF YOU'RE a woman living in Oklahoma, the state government is planning to take away control over your own body. A law that will take effect in November will force women to undergo an unnecessary, expensive and potentially invasive medical procedure if they choose to terminate a pregnancy.

The law, grotesquely known as the "Freedom of Conscience Act," would force any woman who wants an abortion to submit to an ultrasound--either abdominal or vaginal--within one hour of the abortion procedure.

And the choice between an abdominal or vaginal ultrasound isn't the woman's. The law explicitly requires her to submit to whichever type of ultrasound will give her the clearest view of the fetus that she has already decided to abort. For women opting for early terminations, that will likely mean the vaginal ultrasound.

While she undergoes the procedure--potentially against her will--the doctor is required to point out and describe what's on the screen, including the size of the fetus, the presence of a heartbeat, and the presence and location of limbs and internal organs.

If a woman objects to having another piece of medical equipment unnecessarily inserted into her body, that's too bad. If she's a victim of rape or incest and might not want to have to undergo another invasive procedure, too bad. If she wanted the pregnancy, but made the decision to abort because the fetus carries genetic or other medical abnormalities--and maybe doesn't want to dwell on the image of the heartbeat of the fetus she is terminating--again, too bad.

Without the ultrasound, you don't get the abortion. No exceptions.

A veto of the bill by Gov. Brad Henry on grounds that the law victimizes rape and incest survivors "a second time by forcing them to undergo an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of [the fetus] after they have made the difficult and heart-wrenching decision to end their pregnancy" was overridden by state legislators.

Lawmakers sanctimoniously pointed out that the law allows a woman to "avert her eyes" from the ultrasound screen (though presumably not to wear earplugs to escape any moralizing).

And that's only part of the law. In addition, abortion providers will be required to post a sign reading, "Notice: It is against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to have the abortion."

Of course, it's illegal to force a woman to have an abortion. But the purpose of this provision is not to "rescue" imaginary hoards of women supposedly being forced to clinics against their will.

Rather, it's to punish all women who seek to have an abortion--by loading the entire process with as many legal and medical hurdles as possible, and heaping scorn, shame and guilt on women who choose to undergo what should be a fairly simple, and completely personal, medical procedure.

Doctors who fail to follow the letter of the law can be liable for a $10,000 fine for the first offense--rising to a $100,000 fine for the third. A provider who fails to perform the ultrasound can be charged with "unprofessional conduct," and have his or her medical license revoked.

Dr. Dana Stone, an obstetrician/gynecologist who practices in Oklahoma City, Okla., put the fines in perspective in an article on the Huffington Post Web site: "The highest fines for negligent homicide or driving under the influence in Oklahoma are $1,000."

ABORTION MAY still be legal in Oklahoma, but with this law, lawmakers are attempting to make sure that the secrecy, shame and degrading treatment of the days of illegal, back-alley abortions are ever-present.

But while this may be the most heinous recent example, Oklahoma is by no means alone in renewing the attack on a woman's right to choose abortion.

Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi also require ultrasounds before a woman can obtain an abortion. In South Dakota and Ohio, the governor signed into law legislation similar to the Oklahoma bill. And Florida is also considering an ultrasound bill, which would force women to pay for the procedure themselves, potentially adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of an abortion and putting it out of the reach of many poor women.

In spite of all of this, you won't hear a peep from most mainstream politicians. In particular, the Democratic presidential contenders have said little about abortion rights this election season.

Perhaps that's because abortion rights supporters will likely see the Democratic Party as their only option come November. But that obscures part of the problem: electing politicians who are "pro-choice" doesn't guarantee that they will fight for abortion rights.

Take Bill Clinton. While president, Clinton famously said that abortion should be "safe, legal" and, most of all, "rare." His administration took no action as access to abortion dwindled during the 1990s. In 1999, Clinton agreed to a global "gag rule," imposed on international health and women's rights groups that are recipients of U.S. aid. Today, approximately 87 percent of counties in the U.S. lack a single abortion provider--a percentage that grew throughout Clinton's two terms in office.

The retreat from any defense of the right to choose has continued. Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean says he believes "we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats." Hillary Clinton called abortion a "sad, even tragic" choice. In 2005, Dean even advocated a "state's rights" approach to abortion--telling Meet the Press host Tim Russert that since "people do believe different things about this in different states," restrictions on abortion should be drafted by individual state medical boards.

Barack Obama, who has a fairly solid legislative record on abortion rights issues, also uses similar language about "morality" and "reducing unwanted pregnancies." Like the rest of the party mainstream, rather than make a public defense of abortion rights, he has, instead, doled out lectures on personal responsibility.

What all this has meant is that the Democrats have stood by while abortion rights have been chipped away, one restriction at a time--whether through "mandatory waiting periods," parental consent and notification laws, or, in the case of Oklahoma, adding new hurdles to the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion.

There should be no "common cause" with the right-wingers who want to prevent a woman from exercising control over her own body. That's true in Oklahoma, and it's true everywhere else in the U.S.