Opinion
An undue burden
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Inching toward legalization (November 23, 2009)
- Dissent: An impaired decision (November 23, 2009)
- Nike contracts: Nix or fix (November 20, 2009)
- Another justified denial (November 19, 2009)
- Woulf at the door (November 18, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Under current Wisconsin law, physicians must give "voluntary and informed written consent" before an abortion is performed. A patient's options must be explained by the physician or a qualified assistant during a counseling session at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. To ensure the decision is voluntary, a signed consent form is also required.
A new Senate bill discussed last week by a state committee would have physicians who perform abortions make sure the woman's consent is voluntary… again.
The Coercive Abortion Prevention Act states a physician suspecting coercion in a decision to abort must inform the woman of her right not to be coerced and of services available to those at risk of domestic abuse — something that is presumably already covered in the pre-procedure counseling. While the desire to prevent abortions from happening against a woman's will is commendable, introducing flawed legislation as means to this end is not.
Aside from being remarkably superfluous — any good doctor performing an abortion would almost certainly make necessary checks against unwilling consent anyway — the bill also puts an undue burden on physicians. As drafted, the bill does not provide a definition for what constitutes a doctor suspecting coercion, making it difficult to enforce.
Given safeguards against coercive abortion already present in state law, it is difficult to imagine this bill was introduced as much more than a means for abortion opponents to rehash the perennially controversial issue of reproductive rights.
At best, the bill is well-intended but excessive. At worst, it would create an environment in which the state unnecessarily interferes in the relationship between patient and doctor.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
IP hash: 34f51f46
How is it that only idiots run for political seats? I’m starting to understand why monarchs were in charge for hundreds or even thousands of years.
Bring back the inbred monarchs, at least they’ll govern better than these elected ideologic schills.
IP hash: 843b880a
If you are saying you agree “the desire to prevent abortions from happening against a woman's will is commendable,” then why spend an entire editorial arguing that one more safety measure is “flawed.”
A little overzealous, BH Ed Board.
IP hash: 55448fcb
“The Coercive Abortion Prevention Act states a physician suspecting coercion in a decision to abort must inform the woman of her right not to be coerced and of services available to those at risk of domestic abuse”
Not to sound cold, but wouldn’t this dude just punch her in the belly instead of taking her to an abortion clinic?