April 19, 2010

Should dignity be violated to save a life?

The Oklahoma Senate has passed a bill that if signed into law by the governor will establish one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

Abortion is a contentious subject no matter which way you approach it, and the answers to the problems that bring women to this point are easy to pinpoint but much harder to implement.

The Oklahoma bill would require doctors to use a vaginal ultrasound device on women seeking an abortion in cases where the developing baby could not easily be seen on an abdominal ultrasound screen.

The idea, of course, is to help women understand that abortion actually involves babies, albeit at early stages of development.

I'm all for education, for support programs that really help women sift through their options, and for efforts to dissuade them from taking such a drastic step especially if other reasonable options are truly available to them.

But I can't get behind a law that mandates an invasive and, yes, undignified medical procedure -- and any of my readers who've ever endured a vaginal ultrasound for any reason know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Women with unwanted pregnancies know they're pregnant and that this means there's a baby in there somewhere. Abdominal ultrasounds are good enough to confirm a heartbeat and the existence of a developing baby in women not seeking abortions. They should be deemed good enough for women who are.

If the pro-life movement ever hopes to sway the majority to its side, it must remember the importance of compassion for the women involved. Subjecting women in crisis to invasive medical procedures is not the answer.

No comments: