If it's not one thing, it's another.
South of the border, they're always cooking up ways to harangue and harass women who seek abortions.
Force her to get the father's permission -- even if it was a one-night stand. If he says no, she must go the whole nine months and through labour. And, if he raped her? Too bad. He still has to give his consent.
Force her to sit through counseling to persuade her that she both her emotional and physical health are at risk -- as if carrying to term is risk-free.
Force her to endure an necessary ultrasound -- rape by medical equipment -- and make her watch the screen. (The National Post's Jonathan Kay recently opined that that was a super idea.)
Well guess what? According to a recent article by the Guttmacher Institute, one of the world's leading reproductive and sexual health research, public policy and education organizations, once a woman has decided to seek an abortion, there isn't much that can change her mind. (I added the boldface.)
Providing women information specifically geared to dissuading them from having an abortion is a perversion of medical ethics in general and the informed consent process in particular. But no matter how well-worn the tactic, it does not appear to be effective in its purported goal of materially reducing the number of procedures performed. In fact, there is no persuasive evidence that state abortion policies aimed, in one way or another, at talking women out of an abortion stop large numbers of women from having them. At most, there is some indication from the data that erecting substantial, direct roadblocks in the path of women seeing an abortion—such as denying Medicaid subsidies to poor women or requiring women to make two separate trips to a facility to receive in-person counseling, and then wait 24 hours before the abortion—may have that result.
The reasons women express for deciding to have an abortion, and the way they talk about how they made their decision, make it clear that they carefully consider the realities of their own lives and their ability, at that time, to be the kind of parent they want to be to their current and future children (see chart). For many women having an abortion, the issue of caring for dependents is not an abstract one, but a reflection of their current lives. Among such women, six in 10 are already a parent.
In short, attempting to persuade women who are already pregnant and who do not want to be that they really would prefer to carry their pregnancies to term is an unrealistic way to have a substantial effect on the nation's abortion rate. The primary way to lower levels of abortions is to take aim at the proximate cause, unintended pregnancy.
Well then. Seems simple enough. To avoid unintended pregnancy, use contraception.
Except that most of the lawmakers and vocal anti-choice groups are against contraception as well.
Proving once again that the pro-forced pregnancy crown is exactly that: pro-forced pregnancy. Even if you're already a married mother of eight.
It's not about the sanctity of life. It's about treating women as breeding livestock.
They don't call it husbandry for nothing.