It has been said that you can’t legislate morality. Yet, come Sept. 12, the changes looming on the horizon for Planned Parenthood will go into effect.
While some couldn’t be happier about the news, others are left asking why and for what purpose?
Earlier this month, the organization announced that it would be eliminating abortion services in Flagstaff, Prescott Valley, and Yuma, and services will be limited at some of the Phoenix and Tucson areas as well, leaving only three clinics that will provide abortions in the entire state.
These actions are in compliance with recent legislation that calls for widespread change within the organization in Arizona. If Planned Parenthood is unable to appeal the decision, key points from the measures passed in 2009 go into effect on Sept. 12.
Some of these include and mandate requiring minors to possess a notarized parental consent form when seeking termination services, as well as ensuring that the process for a medication-induced abortion is the same as a surgical abortion, in which only a physician may distribute the termination pills.
The increased regulations also allow pharmacists and health care workers to deny women access to abortion literature or information, emergency contraception and birth control over the counter.
Amidst the absurd, part of the reform calls for mandatory information to be distributed within 24 hours of the procedure to patients via their physician about the different options other than termination as well as the associated risks and various characteristics of the unborn child at the time of the abortion.
This is a good thing. When making a choice, it should be informed.
We could argue over any moral or personal objections to abortions and never reach an end or agreement, and that’s OK.
However, approaching this from a legal, objective standpoint, what do women stand to gain from these seemingly unfounded restrictions? Have we learned nothing from prohibition or the War on Drugs? The fact that something is deemed “illegal,” doesn’t mean it will go away.
Regardless of what Uncle Sam has to say, women are still going to get abortions; shouldn’t we make sure that they do so in a clean, safe and supportive environment?
This new string of restrictions opens the door for long waiting lists, potentially having to travel far distances in order to receive services and the possibility of the dreaded “back-alley, wire-hanger” abortions.
It’s not like this legislation is being written to save money in the interest of budget cuts. The fact remains that while Planned Parenthood does receive some federal funding, it is unlawful for them to allocate any of that money for abortion services. This has never been an issue, so what’s the motivation?
Sometimes, it’s just not the right time for a child to come into this world; an unprepared or young mother might not be financially secure, or perhaps the pregnancy is the result of a rape or there are unforeseen health risks that might call for early termination.
Should women be subject to potentially not getting the information they need or necessary contraception just because the pharmacist behind the counter disagrees with your decision or is a staunch conservative?
This isn’t an issue of funding, or national crisis; it doesn’t pose a threat to our state and not every woman seeking termination services is a “baby killer.”
Reach the columnist at Bkarris@asu.edu
