Good intentions

I have been following, albeit from a distance, a long distance, the progress of a South Carolina bill which passed the House last month by a huge margin. The bill requires women requesting an abortion in South Carolina to view an ultrasound image of their child before they agree to the abortion. I am about as pro-life as you can get - a real litmus-test voter on this issue, but I have to confess I just don't get this bill.

I have watched over the years the restictions which pro-lifers have tried to enact into laws in order to by any means save some babies - requiring "informed consent", waiting periods, parental consent for minors, etc. And I have hoped, along with all others who deplore the taking of innocent life in the womb, that the provisions will, indeed, keep some women from making that fatal mistake of terminating a pregnancy and a life. I have sometimes been embarrassed by the rhetoric which surrounds these issues; don't we all, pro-life and pro-abortion, know that making abortion more rare is what they are really all about, not just helping women be better informed or simply giving them time to think about an important decision. The availablility of over the counter abortifacients has, I am sure, seriously limited the impact of such restrictive laws, but they may still save the occasional baby who has made it past the first six weeks, and so I applaud them.

This South Carolina bill, however, seems wrong-headed in the extreme, even to me. First of all, the very presumption that anyone can make someone else look at something they don't wish to see is ridiculous. It reminds me of those gory Driver's Ed films they used to show in high school in the 70's. I remember sitting through an entire class period with my eyes closed while everyone around me groaned and gagged at the images on the screen. No one was allowed to skip the class period when they were shown, but even in my South Carolina high school no one pretended they could make us watch. And I never did. Who is to keep a woman who has already agonized over the decision to seek an abortion from simply looking away or closing her eyes? And don't we all know it is possible to look without really seeing?

The supporters of the bill also, I believe, attribute more power to the grainy ultrasound image than it really possesses. Representatives talk about letting a woman see the face of her baby. Now granted, the last ultrasound I had was about 14 years ago, and I know from images on friends' refrigerators the technology has advanced somewhat, but I would never have been able to make out the face, or the heart, or the tell-tale gender markings of any of my children without a very patient ultrasound technician pointing everything out to me, often more than once. And I really wanted to see what was there! Assuming that most abortions take place in the first trimester, there is not much easily seen on the ultrasound screen, though a beating heart is usually hard to miss. I would sooner vote for a bill that required the mother to hear the heartbeat magnified by a Doppler than to look at a blurry picture. It's harder to close your ears than your eyes, too.

But the biggest problem I have with this bill is the question of how it can be enforced. Short of having an armed officer in each clinic examining room, I can not possibly imagine how this regulation could be enforced. Neither, apparently, can its sponsors, who have said they will figure out at a later date how to enforce it if/when it becomes law. Just imagine the scenario. A clinic worker who has no incentive to dissuade the patient from having the abortion, a patient who has most likely nerved herself for what is to come and just wants to get it over with - and the two of them are expected to cooperate in this joint venture of taking the time and effort to obtain a clear picture of the baby and then examine and appreciate it together. It boggles the mind. It seems to me the state can require a signed piece of paper saying the client has seen the ultrasound, but there is no way they can guarantee the truthfulness of the claim.

I deplore abortion. I weep for every baby who is sacrificed on the altar of convenience, poverty, fear or desperation. I have sheltered unwanted little ones in my home, and I would take a dozen more if I were allowed to (I have too many children to be considered for adoption or foster care in my state.) But I can't see how this bill could possible have any effect on the number of abortions performed in South Carolina, though it can certainly add fuel to the fires of abortion proponents across the country who already believe pro-lifers are not living in the real world. Let's not confirm their suspicions.