New Alabama Bill Seeks Both to Fool and Misinform Women Seeking Safe Abortion Care


The Alabama legislature is at it again. They’ve promoted bills allowing employers to deny birth control coverage to employees and TRAP laws intended to shut down clinics that provide safe abortion care. Now Alabama’s forced pregnancy brigade is focusing on new mandatory waiting periods and informed consent laws. If HB 350 becomes law, women seeking safe abortion care will receive a list of sites where they can obtain free ultrasounds, all of which are crisis pregnancy centers that do not provide the  forced ultrasounds required by the state, but do intend to talk women out of their decisions. Women would also receive information on a state website of resources allegedly available for a woman who continues her pregnancy to term. She would also have to be provided with the business card of the physician who will be doing the abortion, and printed materials telling her abortion increases her risk of breast cancer (it does not), and that “Abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

The “abortion will give you breast cancer” statement isn’t the only lie in the informed consent materials. A new addition will have the physician tell the woman “If the unborn child is viable or has reached a gestational age of more than 19 weeks, the unborn child may be able to survive outside the womb.” [emphasis added]

Since 19 weeks gestational age is a mere 17 weeks post-fertilization, and not even halfway into a normal 40 week gestational/38 week post fertilization pregnancy, no, a fetus at 19 weeks cannot survive outside the womb, not even with extensive medical assistance. The earliest surviving baby was born at 21 weeks 6 days. Although they can be put on respirators to breathe for them, the lungs must develop enough to be able to process the air, development that doesn’t even begin until 17 weeks gestation.

Besides codifying medical lies into “informed consent,” the new bill will also force women to listen to the heart tones of the fetus or embryo prior to an abortion (although she can still turn her head away from the ultrasound placed in front of her while the physician describes the picture—at least this year) during their state mandated ultrasound.

Inaccurate medical declarations, state-mandated forms to trick women into visiting crisis pregnancy centers and emotional manipulations in the exam room prior to the termination? Alabama legislators are obviously determined to ensure that if their plan to close the state’s clinics fail, they can bully women out of abortions instead.

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

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • Maryanna Price

    Raising the cost by mandating more materials and interventions, while also making abortion more expensive as the days and weeks of “time out” tick by.

    This is ideological terrorism that should be screamed down by every board of medical ethics in the world.

  • Ellen Mary

    Delaying pregnancy does increase one’s risk of breast cancer. That is beyond established. So yes, the actual D&C may not increase your risk in the first trimester, but if you follow that up with a delay in pregnancy achieved with synthetic estrogens & progestins, then heck yes, your net risk IS increased . .

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1196615367 Tanya Nguyễn

      well, it’s not, cause you were pregnant. termination or not.
      And i’m not sure that link is “beyond established” but i would like to read anything you have? I’m assuming i’ll find it with google “breast cancer delay pregnancy”

    • cjvg

      -During pregnancy, breast cells grow rapidly. If there is any genetic damage in the breast cells, it gets copied as the cells grow. This increased genetic damage in the cells can lead to breast cancer.
      -Breast cancer risk is slightly increased for about 10 years after a first birth.
      women who give birth only once at age 35 or older have a slightly higher risk compared to nulliparous women.
      –women who have their first child at a later age (35 and older) have a higher risk of breast cancer than women who have their first child at a younger age (before age 20)

      RESEARCH DATA.
      *Lambe M, Hsieh C, Trichopoulos D, Ekbom A, Pavia M, Adami HO. Transient
      increase in the risk of breast cancer after giving birth. N Engl J Med. 331(1):5-9, 1994.*
      *Willett WC, Tamimi RM, Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA. Chapter 20: Nongenetic Factors in the Causation of Breast Cancer, in Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osborne CK. Diseases of the Breast, 4th edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2010. *

      -Whether having children protects equally against estrogen receptor-positive and estrogen receptor-negative (including triple negative) breast cancers is under study.
      -For women who give birth at older ages, the increase in risk from a first pregnancy never gets fully offset by its long-term protective benefits.
      -The relationship is complex, both the age when you give birth to your first child and the number of children you give birth to affect your risk.

      RESEARCH DATA
      *Colditz GA, Rosner B. Cumulative risk of breast cancer to age 70 years according to risk factor status: data from the Nurses’ Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 152(10):950-64, 2000.*
      *Shinde SS, Forman MR, Kuerer HM, et al. Higher parity and shorter breastfeeding duration: association with triple-negative phenotype of breast cancer. Cancer. 116(21):4933-43, 2010.*

      META-ANALYSIS RESEARCH DATA
      *Ewertz M, Duffy SW, Adami HO, et al. Age at first birth, parity and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 8 studies from the Nordic countries. Int J Cancer. 46(4):597-603, 1990.*
      *Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and breast feeding: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50,302 women with breast cancer and 96,973 women without the disease. Lancet 20:187-195, 2002.*
      Not quite, it increases the risk in some cases and it decreases the risl in others.
      Also, recommending that everyone has their children before age 20 to decrease breastcancer risk is irresponsible to say the least

      • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

        Or Pam Stenzel will shake her finger at you!

    • HeilMary1

      Actually, the extremely high estrogen levels during pregnancy (especially with female fetuses) seems to trigger many breast and face (dead best friend) cancers in some women. Young motherhood seems to offer NO protection against cancer. I collect obits of women who die young right after childbirth in the D.C. tri-state area. Many had breast cancer and just had daughters. Almost all women I know who battled cancer recently had daughters. An ex-coworker at USAToday told me his physician sister concluded from medical journals that pregnancy triggered their dead sister’s breast cancer. Of course, she just had a daughter too. Then there is the should-be-infamous example of adulterous Eric Prince of Blackwater who legally murdered his first wife with additional breast cancer-causing pregnancies after she barely survived her first bout that occurred while she was pregnant with her first daughter.

      I’m also very insulted by forced birthers who command all women to magically avoid breast cancer just by being young mothers. They never admit that daughters increase cancer risks, that all pregnancies impose other deadly risks or that disfigured abuse survivors like me can never land husbands in the first place.

      Never having children saves a boatload in medical debt and injuries of all kinds.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1196615367 Tanya Nguyễn

    how is it legal for anyone to LIE like this. much less make it active policy.
    these bills will become unconstitional, but it will be a long time in the making.

  • della

    Time magazine says these 3 d and 4 d ultra sounds are hurting the abortion industry

    • Dezzydez

      There is no abortion industry. Also women are not idiots. We know it’s a human fetus inside us, not a puppy. Stop treating us like dumbasses.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

      Yeah, and I betcha get yer jollies out of raping women by instruments.

  • http://www.facebook.com/keith.schiffner.75 Keith Schiffner

    Good to see the southern states on the east coast are just as big a bunch of socialist democrats as the northern states. Makes it easier to never want to go there ever again. Isn’t a state east of the missisippi that isn’t an embarassment to the union, some on the west bank of the river are pretty spotty also.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

      This isn’t social democracy, Keith.

      • http://www.facebook.com/keith.schiffner.75 Keith Schiffner

        Yep they are all socialists…you just don’t realize that because you have been indoctrinated at a state approved institution. Been a socialist state ever since FDR boned us over. Oh and Carla it’s supposed to be a representative republic. I’m tired of idiots like you thinking it’s democracy.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

          Um, do you lack reading comprehension, as well? Did I not say that it is NOT a social DEMOCRACY? You lack credibility when you attempt to twist my words so that it means something one way, but leave it as is so that it means something else another way, all so you can attack ANY point I’m attempting to make. Case in point, YOUR contention that I am saying that they aren’t socialists, so you can use some twisted version of what you perceive socialism to be, against me, then your claim that I am saying that this IS a democracy, so you can call me an idiot. I was making the claim that it WAS NEITHER. ‘IDIOT’.

          I think I know what Socialism is, when I come from a country like Canada (and, no, before you go blowing a gasket, I did NOT EVER claim that I was from the US, kthx) where false accusations have been continuously leveled at us of being a socialist state, and where WE, truthfully, have continuously pointed out the DIFFERENCES between a socialist state and a country like Canada.

          The problems with the people in the majority, if not ALL, southern states, is that they adhere to a POLICY of capitalism. Namely, that of CORPORATE WELFARE. Note, I did not call it socialism, like an ‘idiot’ such as yourself would have, being unable to differentiate between the two? Something the Republican Conservatives support VERY well, especially considering how the majority of them are the ones trying to push through legislation like this.

          Sad that the one who was able to distinguish between socialism and corporate welfare, and democracy and a representative republic, has been able to smash your preconceptions, Keith, even though you couldn’t recognize the attempt in the latter, as the IRRATIONAL person you make yourself out to be?

          • http://www.facebook.com/keith.schiffner.75 Keith Schiffner

            Yep you are dumb one aren’t you…that or you so full of crap you don’t recognize subtlty and a free history lesson. You dunderhead…national socialist democratic party. IOW you ninny they are a bunch of Nazi scum and need removal from the gene pool. It’s rather obvious how ignorant you are and your utter reliance on a state sponsored indoctrination instead of an actual education. Do get a clue you intelligence challenged bovine.

  • Pingback: Misinformed Consent | rhubenblog

  • Pingback: Misinformed Consent | thefeministblogproject