• We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.
• . . .
• Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.

• This right of privacy, . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

.
The opinion allows states to restrict the choice of abortion based upon the trimester of pregnancy, but not at the risk of the mother’s life or an erosion of her right to privacy to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy.
.

• For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

• The Texas Medical Association and women’s rights groups oppose the law because they say the state is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship for ideological reasons and the law serves no medical purpose. Texas’ ultrasound law is being challenged in court by the Texas Medical Association 

.
The Texas Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Edith Jones has ruled the doctors’ First Amendment rights are not being violated and a rehearing is being requested. Judge Jones has gone on record as disagreeing with the logic used to decide Roe v Wade.

.

When regulations are based upon the personal morals of a legislator or judge instead of the constitution, we have a problem.
.
If the Center for Reproductive Rights is not granted a rehearing, this may be the case to test mandated ultrasound tests before the Supreme Court.
.

• The center could also appeal Jones’ ruling to the Supreme Court and ask that the law remain on hold pending a ruling there. Nancy Northrup, the center’s president, said they are studying their options.

.

The fight in Texas is important to all states because of the proliferation of bills restricting the right to access abortion; bills that add time, expense and hardship for many people. These all limit the ability to make the choice which is correct for a family.

.
Kentucky has two bills pending with the stated aim of reducing abortions.
.

• Senate Bill 102 would require women seeking abortions to get “face-to-face” counseling 24 hours in advance of the procedure. Current law allows such information to be provided by telephone.
• Senate Bill 103 would require physicians to perform an ultrasound before an abortion and attempt to show the image of the fetus to the pregnant woman although she could refuse to look at it.

.

These two bills will place an undue hardship on women in rural areas of Kentucky. They are putting obstacles in the way of timely, affordable choice of abortion for many. If the Supreme Court rules in the Texas case, it will effect the enforcement of these Kentucky bills.
.
We are at a crossroads in the abortion controversy. The right to have an abortion is there. The ability for states to restrict access to abortion is also there.
.
A woman may choose to have an abortion in the first trimester in private consultation with her physician. States have the ability to dictate the talking points of her physician within the private consultation. The patient is under a time deadline of 13 weeks  to discover the unwanted pregnancy, make the decision to sustain or terminate the pregnancy, find a physician, arrange for time off from work, arrange for childcare, gather funds necessary, arrange for transportation and possibly overnight lodging, go through state-mandated testing and waiting periods, and have the abortion.
.
These steps are magnified in difficulty in the case of health issues for those pregnancies needing to be terminated later than the first trimester.
.
The choice for abortion is never an easy process. It is made harder by legislative obstacles placed in the path of patients wanting to exercise their choice.
.
We need a better, more humane way to approach the abortion controversy.
.
Discrimination
.
In the past few months, there have been several articles I read and speeches I heard emphasizing the dangers inherent in basing abortion access upon health privacy instead of discrimination against women. With the provisions limiting access to abortion, this seems to be an approach to a better way within the abortion controversy.
.
A January 22, 2012 article by Marianne Møllmann,  Amnesty International, clearly states this idea:
.

• . . . when a government unduly limits access to a medical procedure only women need, it not only infringes their privacy, it engages in blatant discrimination.

.

How can we allow laws to eliminate necessary health care for just female reproductive choices? Female persons are 50.8% of the US population. How can we as a country justify closing reproductive options for all of them?

.
As pro-access and reproductive justice activists, we need to work for basic human rights surrounding reproductive choices. We need to demand the right to not be discriminated against in our reproductive decisions.
.
We need to move forward not backwards.
.

—–

Bloggers United for Human Rights is a community of bloggers dedicated to the principle that all human rights are inalienable. Not to be voted, or debated, or negotiated. Blog with us on 2/15 to support Women’s Reproductive Rights.

.