When Did Being Informed Become "Harmful?"

“The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to let Texas enforce its new abortion sonogram law…” reads the first line of Emily Ramshaw’s Texas Tribune article titled “Supreme Court Won't Reinstate Abortion Sonogram Law.” Ramshaw concludes that she is “awaiting comment on the denial from the AG's office,” not really stating her own view point on the matter either way.

Allow me to share MY view point… I’m a tad disheartened that the law, “which would have forced women to have a sonogram and hear a description of the fetus before terminating a pregnancy,”  wasn’t passed. Yes, I said “disheartened!” The mere fact that we were even debating over whether or not to pass this law is puzzling! No one objects to x-rays regarding sore knees or aching backs. Very few demand medical treatment, with little information collected or provided. Furthermore, many physicians would be considered negligent if they declined to collect information concerning a medical condition and provide that information to a patient before offering treatment. But then, pregnancy is a peculiar medical condition. Most often a patient is very much aware of her medical condition before she walks into a doctor's office. With the case of abortions, she surely knows she is pregnant and she knows the cure, at least by name. A woman does not need an x-ray to tell her she is pregnant, prior to having an abortion. What she might not know, and what she may not WANT to know, are the details.

My question though is, “Where is the harm?” According to Ramshaw’s article, Julie Rikelman, senior staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights stated that “the district court’s decision to block portions of this new law, which is intrusive and unconstitutional, was well-supported.  There is no basis for the state’s attempts to short-circuit the legal process by trying to nullify the court’s decision on an emergency basis.” But to me, any type of medical procedure should be considered an “emergency basis.”

Abortion has always been a psychologically complex medical procedure to consider. Numerous studies have been conducted that identify the often troubling psychological consequences that take place after an abortion is received. Many women undergo depression and regret in the years following having an abortion. For abortion advocates, front loading the procedure with information will only make a difficult choice even more difficult. There is apprehension that many women will decline receiving an abortion if they are mandated to listen to details before receiving one. A women strolling down to the clinic in anticipation of receiving an abortion might have second thoughts if she is required to deal with the details of what she is considering. She might learn that an abortion is not quite the casual procedure she expected.

Why any of that should bother abortion rights advocates puzzles me. Should the law have been permissible to stand, abortion would be no less safe or legal. It might have become infrequent, but hasn't that been the stated objective of abortion advocates from the start? Or have they really intended that abortion should ONLY be safe, legal, and easy?

If “being informed” is the enemy of abortion, it scares me to think of what constitutes as its allies…