~ The issue ~ Ultrasound viewing before abortion

~ Our opinion ~ Existing state law on abortion is adequate

South Carolina lawmakers are marching toward requiring a woman seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound image of the fetus she is carrying. The law is well-intended but impractical and unfair.

Governor Mark Sanford has made the case for the legislation: “I believe life is sacred, and in the debate over when life begins I believe that as a society we should always err on the side of life. That being said, right now the law of the land is that the decision to have an abortion is a legal one, and as such we think it’s incredibly important for a woman to have the maximum amount of information possible before making that decision. This new ultrasound requirement is an important one in that I think it has the potential to lessen the number of abortions carried out in South Carolina, and as such I’d urge the House to pass this bill and for the Senate to do the same.”

House members agreed, with the Senate expected to follow, likely with amendments to grant exceptions for women who are victims of rape or incest.

The law makes a statement that the state’s leaders are looking for ways to limit abortion without treading on a woman’s right to choose, which in South Carolina is limited to abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy. The hope is that women will change their minds about abortion after seeing the image and carry the baby to term for adoption.

But should our state require that doctors and/or medical facilities show fetal images to a woman who is seeking an abortion?

For most women, seeking an abortion will be traumatic enough. Such decisions are not reached lightly. Should she be put under duress and forced to look at an image even if she chooses not to?

It was in 1992 that the U.S. Supreme Court decided states could regulate abortion as long as laws do not place an “undo burden” on the woman. The South Carolina law, which would be the first in the nation, could face a legal challenge.

And this week, S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster advised that the law as written is unconstitutional.

Trying to bring some common sense to the equation, Orangeburg Sen. Brad Hutto has argued that viewing the ultrasound should be voluntary.

Forcing women to view the image is impractical, he said. “Otherwise, what would you do – put people’s head in a harness? The right to refuse is pretty basic.”

Is it to be left to medical professionals to force a person to view an image they don’t want to see? And just how far are they to go in such a process?

And then there’s the matter of abortions being conducted because the health of the mother is at risk. How culpable is the state if the law makes the woman in such a case change her mind about abortion and ultimately lose her health or even life in the process?

Orangeburg Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter spoke against the law during House debate, telling The Times and Democrat it is wrong to try to make a woman feel guilty about having an abortion. “I don’t think that’s right. It suggests that women arrive at this decision lightly and that they don’t know what a fetus looks like.”

She makes the case that existing abortion law in the state is adequate.

“South Carolina already has informed consent laws, which require a woman to review printed materials, to sign something that says she’s reviewed these materials and to wait an hour after she’s reviewed the materials. I believe our current law is sufficient,” Cobb-Hunter said.

We agree. The new statute may make lawmakers feel good about trying to limit abortion, but it’s unlikely to have real impact beyond putting medical professionals and their patients in ever more difficult situations.

You must be logged in to comment.