2007 State Legislative Trends in RH
Rachel Gold and..., Guttmacher Institute on February 25, 2008 - 9:45am
Over the course of 2007, legislators in the 50 states considered more than 1,000 proposals concerning reproductive health and rights. These proposals resulted in 88 new laws in 38 states. While legislative activity about abortion was split between provisions to restrict or protect abortion rights, most of the activity around contraception and prevention was aimed at expanding access to reproductive health services. Some of the more important legislative highlights and lowlights are presented below (a more extensive overview can be found here). Highlights:
Lowlights:
7 comments
Interesting that you openly consider it a "lowlight" for the law to ensure that women and young girls considering abortion can make an informed decision. To be honest, it's downright offensive and patronizing of you to be opposed to laws guaranteeing that pregnant women will be given information about the surgical procedure they are considering. I suppose you think it's better that "they" don't know (poor ignorant fools that they are). Elitist censorship, nothing more. as defined by these lowlight laws is state-mandated information that doctors are required to give, whether or not it is medically accurate. So these "informed consent" laws are anything but. In reference to censorship, the state-mandated materials, which have medically false info, ask that patients disregard any info they have been told, which is accurate info. So there's false info censoring out real info. The fact that you are prepared to wholly dismiss the information as "prolife propaganda" suggests bias. In several states, doctors must hand out information packets that link a risk of breast cancer to abortion. Something that is NOT medically accurate. I'm not going to do your research for you so go and look it up. Look up what each state mandates for their "informed consent". Then maybe you can talk about this like you know what in the hell you are talking about ok? Thanks. about accuracy, you would dispense with the pot calling the kettle black. See my reply to Mr. Cannon, there are three links with specific information. The study entitled "Misinformed Consent:The Medical Accuracy of State Developed Abortion Counseling Materials" has a state-by-state table on their materials. Five states: Alaska, Kansas, Missouri,Texas, and West Virginia false assert a link between abortion and the risk of later breast cancer. (Only one correctly reports no link) Seven states: Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia false assert only negative emotional responses to abortion. Eleven states correctly state women will feel a range of emotions after an abortion. Five states: Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota,South Dakota, and Texas include information on the ability of fetuses to feel pain. Most accurately state the ability of the fetus to feel pain isn't developed before 20 weeks - long after the majority of most abortions are performed - so the requirement is somewhat moot. Twenty states: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia,Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana,Minnesota,Mississippi, Nebraska,North Dakota, Ohio,Pennsylvania,South Carolina,South Dakota,Texas,Utah,Virginia,West Virginia, and Wisconsin provide referral resources for "crisis pregnancy centers". A study sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman reports these CPCs have some of the same problems with medical accuracy. But only thirteen states (some overlap): (Alaska,Arkansas,Kansas,Louisiana,Mississippi,Nebraska,North Dakota,Ohio,South Carolina,South Dakota,Texas, and West Virginia) provide referral resources for family planning services. I suggest you read the article in it's entirety for deeper analysis of each state. Is that enough "research" for you? Fine. Here are some more links. "State Abortion Counseling Policies and the Fundamentals of Informed Consent" "Misinformed Consent: The Medical Accuracy of State-Developed Abortion Counseling Materials" "Abortion Counseling Requirements Often Violate Core Principles of Informed Consent" This is what you get for jumping to the conclusion I am "biased". |
1Reducing Maternal Mortality Is Easy with Safe AbortionBy Alicia Meulensteen on May 16, 2008 - 8:00am | 0 comments ![]() Get Real! I Hate Being a Girl. What's Wrong?By Heather Corinna on May 16, 2008 - 8:00am | 0 comments ![]() 2Pregnant Trans People Need Care, Not Media CircusBy Erin Wilkins on May 15, 2008 - 8:00am | 5 comments ![]() 3Sexualizing Tweens for Profit: A Q&A with Gigi DurhamBy T. M. Lindsey on May 14, 2008 - 8:00am | 15 comments ![]() Debate Rages in Minnesota House As Stem-Cell Funding PassesBy Andy Birkey on May 14, 2008 - 8:00am | 0 comments ![]() 4When Getting Pregnant Isn't About Being a MotherBy Angela Castellanos on May 13, 2008 - 8:29am | 0 comments ![]() Pedaling into Local Reproductive Justice ActivismBy Nora Dye and Shelby Knox on May 13, 2008 - 8:26am | 0 comments ![]() 5Whose Safe Haven? Abandoned Baby Found in St. LouisBy Pamela Merritt on May 12, 2008 - 8:24am | 2 comments ![]() Reproductive Justice Bill in Illinois Mobilizes New AlliesBy Veronica Arreola on May 12, 2008 - 8:20am | 2 comments ![]() Today
Discussions
All Time
RH Reality Check Blogroll
|
||||