Missouri Passes Anti-Choice Legislation


That Missouri passed new legislation adding new roadblocks to access for women seeking abortions sadly isn’t very shocking.  Last week a state senate committee voted to pass two new laws restricting abortions: a mandatory ultrasound that needs to be viewed 24 hours prior to the procedure, and a data collection bill, meant to gather information about why a woman is seeking an abortion.

It’s easy to see why the committee is so interested in asking personal questions about women seeking abortions. After all, they seemed to think it was their job to ask personal questions of the advocates opposing the measures as well.

[Planned Parenthood Lobbyist Michelle] Trupiano was lobbying against two bills. One, sponsored by Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-St. Peters, would require abortion providers to ask women seeking an abortion why they were seeking the abortion, and another bill by Sen. Rob Mayer, R-Dexter, that would increase the state’s existing informed consent law.

After Trupiano stated her concerns with the two bills, [Sen. Jane] Cunningham asked her:

“Have you ever had an abortion?”

The Senate Lounge became very quiet at that point. Trupiano told Cunningham that the answer to that question was none of her business, at which point Cunningham got a bit combative until Bartle reminded her to allow witnesses to answer the questions asked of them.

The attitude that Cunningham took in questioning Trupiano epitomized the condescending mindset that anti-choice legislators have in assuming that women are not smart enough to make their own decisions on abortion.  They said as much when advocating for the ultrasound bill itself.

“The most effective way to protect children and keep women from being wounded for life is to ensure that women facing unplanned pregnancies have received factual information concerning their decision,” Sen. Rob Mayer, R-Dexter, said at the hearing conducted by the Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Monday.

Opposition to the legislation disputed the effectiveness of the bill, saying an ultrasound would be ineffective.

“Women who come in the day of the procedure — they’ve made up their mind,” said Michelle Trupiano, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. She said most women choose not to view the ultrasound.

But many anti-abortion activists say a mother seeing her live fetus would be enough to persuade her to forego an abortion. Legislative staff said 11,580 abortions took place in Missouri in 2008.

“I just can’t imagine a woman making a statement like that,” Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-St. Louis County, said of a woman going through with an abortion after viewing an ultrasound.

Women who want abortions are assumed to be “confused,” “misinformed,” and “unaware” about the procedure; they are treated as though they are unaware that they are pregnant and need someone to make their decision for them to “protect” them from “being wounded for life.” 

Not every legislator on the committee was willing to say that women weren’t smart enough to make their own decisions.  As Sen. Jolie Justus stated, “I think all it is meant to do is probably create some shame for a woman who is facing the worst decision she’s ever had to face in her life.”

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • prochoicegoth

    So not only are we women sluts for having enjoyable non-procreative sex, but we’re also too dumb to know what an abortion is and how a fetus develops…the poor women of Missouri.

  • saltyc

    This will make abortions more costly, who will foot the bill, the clinic or the patient? Cause we know the government aint gonna do it. Yet they make us to it and pay for it to boot. One reason women delay getting abortions is they need more time to collect the money.

  • ch

    This legislation enshrines into law what is already a standard, industry-wide practice of performing ultrasounds before performing terminations to accurately date the pregnancy to make sure that they are acting within the parameters of the law.  The sad thing is the colossal waste of money, time and energy spent enacting this legislation for a practice that is already common place and has been for at least 30 years.  This sort of posturing simply allows politicians to make their constituents, especially anti-choice ones, think they are actually doing something when they aren’t.  As such, it isn’t an unfunded mandate because the ultrasound is included (and has been) in the medical service.

     

    @ProchoiceGoth

    I always wonder what anti-choicers think women think they are doing when they terminate pregnancies.  I totally understood it meant I wouldn’t remain pregnant or give birth.  You know, that was sort of the point.   

    • crowepps

      What the law does is insist that standard medical practice is besides the point, the purpose of ultrasounds in their view is to sit the woman down in front of it and then give her a speech about how it’s “a beating heart” and “an innocent life”, etc., etc., in the hopes that she’ll be shamed into changing her mind. Without, of course, providing any money which she can use for medical care during the pregnancy or actually feeding it, since ‘sluts don’t make good mothers’ – instead she’s supposed to be encouraged to release it for adoption to a ‘good home’ which by definition is of course Christian.