Two out of three support informed consent on abortion
DPF’s “surprised” comment:
I asked a couple of female friends what they thought, as I was puzzled that more women said they supported a law effectively making it more difficult to have an abortion.
The actual poll question?
“Would you support a law that would require a woman considering an abortion to first see a doctor, who is not an abortion provider, to be informed of the medical risks and alternatives to abortion?”
Hmm. Something seems wrong with this picture. TO THE SLUTCAVE!
Your first hint might be that Family First (who have followed the Kiwi Party’s cue in wheeling out a spokeswoman when convenient) immediately state this in their press release:
“Family First NZ is calling for a law which requires informed consent including ultrasound for all potential abortions, and counselling to be provided only by non-providers of abortion services. Parental notification of teenage pregnancy and abortion should happen automatically except in exceptional circumstances approved by the court.”
That’s funny. The poll question didn’t mention any of those things. 1950s-style-Families First wouldn’t be just using a strangely-innocuous poll question to pretend there’s more support for their misogynist bullshit than there really is, would they?
As a sidenote, you’ve got to love that condition on parental notification. Circumstances approved by the court! Because a teen in the kind of situation where it’s in her best interests not to tell her parents she’s getting an abortion totally has time and resources to get a fucking court order without them knowing! “Honey, why do you have a court date to get an injunction against parental notification of an abortion? You’re not going to have an abortion, are you?” “No, possibly abusive parents, of course not!”
The poll also didn’t say anything about how this might make it harder for women to get abortions. Funny, because if DPF were so concerned maybe he could have counselled his clients about how they might not get accurate results with such an open-ended, not-considering-the-consequences question.
Let’s remember that in New Zealand, even women who get abortions often have no fucking idea at the outset how long and how stressful the process is. So it’s no fucking good to say “oh, I guess this majority of people just considered that forcing women to see yet another medical practitioner, in order to check that they do really want to undergo the medical procedure they’ve already had to see two medical practitioners whom they’ve had to convince to liberally interpret the law’s definition of “mental health” grounds in order to get permission to have.”
But that’s hardly the only problem with the question. “Seeing a doctor who is not an abortion provider” is a wonderful little dogwhistle, particularly common to US antichoicers, that somehow Planned Parenthood or Family Planning are just raaaaaaaaaking in the cash, that every Pweshus Embwyo’s life makes them miiiiiillions, that doctors just love facing daily harassment and even the threat of death in order to make the faaaaaaaaaaat dollaaaaaaaaaaaahs out of abortions.
You do realise they could just go into Botoxing women’s faces, right?
DPF’s open-mouthed innocence is brilliant, though:
One salient question I would pose on this issue is whether such a procedure would actually lead to some women not having an abortion due to “better” information, who do currently have an abortion – or would it just be an extra hassle and cost for every woman seeking an abortion, and not actually change anything.
“Salient question”, DPF? Do your clients know that you’re undermining their entire rationale for forcing women to undergo ultrasounds – i.e. “women are stupid and seeing da widdle handies and feeties (which the vast majority of aborted zefs won’t have anyway) will totes change their minds because they must just think they’re pregnant with guppies.”
And a little protip: “informed consent” is not the same fucking thing as “an antichoice doctor shoving a probe into your vagina and saying “look there’s a heartbeat, boy this little guy sure is energetic, and did we mention [insert antichoice lie of preference here]*”" … especially when there is no proof it will change someone’s mind.
And a final note: when antichoicers say “alternatives to abortion”, they mean “adoption“. Because apparently the alternative to not continuing a pregnancy you don’t want to continue is … continuing a pregnancy you don’t want to continue. Presumably as long as your baby is “healthy” and “normal” and white.
*My personal favourite is “you’ll die of breast cancer!!!” and right here I think it’s pretty salient to point out that no New Zealand woman has died due to an abortion since 1980. Out of over 380,000 abortions. Abortion? Safer than pregnancy. But you don’t see Family First arguing that we need to warn women about pre-eclampsia for their own good, that might interfere with The Breeding.