by Jillian Hewitt
A new piece of state legislation in Oklahoma will require doctors to post the details of every abortion they perform on the Internet; by “details” about the abortion I really mean details about the woman having the abortion, such as her age, what town she’s from, the reason for the abortion, the number of previous pregnancies she’s had, what her race is, what her marital status is etc. Proponents of the legislation (named the Statistical Reporting of Abortions Act) claim that the law doesn’t violate HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that serves to protect the privacy of patients), since the women are not identified by name and no “personal information” is included. I wonder what exactly qualifies, in these people’s minds, as personal information? The number of pregnancies she’s had isn’t personal information, but perhaps like, her bra size is? Something like that? In any event, critics have rightly pointed out that in some small towns (which Oklahoma has many of…) this kind of information is enough to effectively out the woman.
The bigger problem, I think, is that the publication of the information begs people in small towns (or even in cities) to begin suspecting people—suddenly all 17-year-old white girls in the 10th grade become potential baby-killers, or my friend who happens to be 33, unmarried, and black starts getting strange stares when we walk through town. The possibilities for judgment and demonization are endless.
Moreover, this legislation brings something that should be completely irrelevant—the possibility that complete strangers will find out that you’ve had an abortion—to the forefront of women’s minds should they have to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy or not. Whether a woman is emotionally prepared to have a child; whether she has the means to do so, etc.—these are the things she should be thinking of in such a difficult situation. Whether her colleagues will find out that she’s had an abortion (should she choose to do so); whether she might become the target of violence or intimidation—certainly we can agree that these should not be the determining factors in her decision. Which brings us to another harmful effect of the bill—the possibility that it will instigate violence, death threats, etc. It is one thing to believe that abortion is wrong, but it’s quite another to be armed with the information necessary to target those who have made the decision to abort. I am certainly not presuming that all anti-choice people would go to such lengths, but rather that the publication of abortion details will provide certain people with the information necessary to persecute and demonize specific women.
In addition to the negative effects the legislation would have on women who choose to have abortions, this law discourages doctors from performing abortions in the first place by requiring that each procedure is followed by 34 pages of paperwork. Oh, and the plan will cost $281,285 dollars to implement, according to the Huffington Post. On a positive note, the legislation was supposed to be implemented beginning on November 1st but has been postponed because of litigation—two women have sued with the support of the Center for Reproductive Rights, claiming that the law is unconstitutional because it “covers more than one subject.” Speculation is that the broadness of the law itself will be its downfall, and hopefully the result of the litigation will be the demise of the legislation.
Many anti-choice advocates cite their moral objection to the act of abortion as their fundamental reason for believing that abortion should be illegal—a sort of “hate the sin, not the sinner” mentality. But I wonder how they would defend this legislation—and I’m confident they would defend it—when it is so clearly preoccupied with the details of the woman who chooses to have the abortion. If it’s abortion per se that is so objectionable, what is point of publicizing the woman’s reason for having the abortion, if not to call attention to the sinner herself? As one blogger put it, “Why don’t we just tattoo a Scarlett “A” on their foreheads?” Overall, the law represents the erosion of choice. Choice is not just about having the legal right to make decisions about our own bodies, it’s about being able to make that choice without fear of persecution, judgment, or worse.
Photo courtesy of callmebutter’s Flickr Photostream.
Restrictions like this Oklahoma law have only one purpose: to prevent women from exercising a legal choice by hassling and intimidating them. When the mafia does this, it’s called racketeering.
The Supreme Court has removed the issue of abortion’s legality from the political arena. Out of resentment and frustration, anti-choice politicians pass whatever laws they can to make what is legal de jure impossible de facto. Parental notification laws, waiting periods, mandatory counseling, and lack of availability all undermine what is supposed to be a free choice.
And the fact that all abortion-related laws will be second-guessed by a court leads legislatures to pass the most extreme and absurd laws, to see what makes it past the judicial goalie. When it comes to abortion regulations, many state legislatures have abandoned any concern for what’s good policy.
Also, if you suspect someone you know had an abortion and know the general time frame you could easily tell it’s them by seeing 20 year old white female single first pregnancy on the day she had it. It just seems very invasive to me.