On Deck for Next Year: Washington's Women Have No Understanding of Their Health or Bodies Act
'Tis the season for preparing for the next state legislative session! Publicola tipped us off to this prefiled bill: HB 2200, the Women's Right to Know Act of 2012. Basically, it would mandate tactics already used by manipulative, anti-abortion pregnancy centers: if you were seeking an abortion, your doctor would have to describe "the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child," plus let you know that "the father of the unborn child" is liable for monetary support.
Later in the bill, it requires that your doctor offer you videos and printed material on abortion. Even further down, it stipulates that Department of Health produce these materials -- and has strict criteria for the video (emphasis mine):
[The video must be] easily comprehensible at a sixth-grade level and that describes the anatomical and physiological characteristics of an unborn child at various stages from conception to natural birth, describes the various methods of abortion used to terminate the life of an unborn child, lists alternatives to abortion, and provides a comprehensive list of the addresses and phone numbers of agencies that offer alternatives to abortion and services to assist a woman through pregnancy, upon childbirth, and while the child is dependent, including but not limited to abortion agencies. The video shall, in addition to the information described in this section, show an ultrasound of the heartbeat of an unborn child at four to five weeks gestational age, at six to eight weeks gestational age, and each month thereafter until viability.
A tiny consolation prize buried in the bill states that the doctor must also inform the patient of "the probable medical risks associated with carrying her unborn child to term," but this is ultimately outweighed by the much-longer stipulation concerning abortion -- "the immediate and long-term medical risks associated with the proposed abortion method" and "alternatives to abortion" are both required -- and superfluous use of the phrase "unborn child."
And why? Let's ask the bill (emphasis mine):
Women and girls often obtain abortions without a full understanding of the potential physical and mental health consequences to themselves and the unborn baby they are carrying.
Back up. Some of our lawmakers seriously think that our state's women get abortions without knowing the consequences to the unborn baby. No, we don't end the pregnancy. No. Your baby stays alive and goes to live with the unicorns in the land of rainbows. It's condescending and insulting. Oh, and did you also know that, by getting an abortion, you are disturbing the public peace and dismantling our public institutions? (Wait, what?)
This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, morals, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately.
So which of your state legislators apparently think that women who seek abortions are not only ill-informed, but dismantling the state's moral fabric? The bill is sponsored by John Ahern (R-Spokane), Mark Miloscia (D-Federal Way), Jim McCune (R-Spanaway), Brad Klippert (R-Tri-Cities), Larry Crouse (R-Spokane), Matt Shea (R-Spokane), Shelly Short (R-Republic), and Judy Warnick (R-Moses Lake).
