Texas to Require a Sonogram Before Abortion; Obama to Require Employers and Insurers to Cover Contraceptives

By HANNAH ZEAVIN
January 22, 2012

This week, the Obama administration announced its decision to reaffirm that health insurers must cover contraceptives with little exception.  Despite an attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to lobby for a wider exemption from this decision, the Obama administration stood firm and rejected such an exclusion. This proscription would have meant that the Church would not have had to provide such insurance plans that cover contraception to the employees at affiliated non-profits, universities, schools, or medical centers.  However, those employed directly by a a house of worship or a religious charity that does not serve a multiplicity of faiths will remain exempt from the ruling.

The decision to require employers to choose insurance plans that include contraceptives will remove a large economic barrier for acquiring birth control. Though this decision is not tantamount to universal coverage of contraceptives, it will guarantee that nearly every employed woman will have access to birth control.  Though most employers and their plans must come into compliance with this decision by August 1st of this year, the Church has been granted one extra year to do so.

In Texas, a Federal Appeals court upheld a law passed last year requiring abortion providers to show a sonogram of a fetus before performing the procedure. Requiring women to look at a sonogram, formerly optional, makes a unilateral decision for women who need and want different things, having decided to terminate a pregnancy.  Emma Dorsey, an abortion and birth doula working in New York City, says of such a law, “Legislating about sonograms is so difficult. Ultimately, requiring a woman to look at a sonogram is just patronizing…Some women are reassured by seeing the image of a sonogram.  I’ve heard women say things like, ‘Oh, that’s it?!’ or, ‘It looks like a peanut.’ Sometimes women don’t want to look. They want to dissociate from the procedure as much as possible. Both of these responses are completely normal within the context of the deeply personal experience of abortion. It can also be triggering for the many pro-life women, mothers, and women with histories of miscarriage, who have abortions. Interfering with the these diverse experiences of abortion from the removed vantage of legislation is just another reminder that a government doesn’t trust women.”

According to the New York Times, Chief Judge Edith H. Jones, from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that “the required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information.”  Though not part of the court that ruled in favor of the law, Jones has been influential in protecting it from criticism which holds that the law violates the First Amendment.

However, Lola McLure, a nurse working in women’s health, interprets the decision as an undermining of a carefully made decision on the part of a woman, or a woman and her partner.  She said in an interview Saturday, “What does looking at an ultrasound tell you? That you’re pregnant, a state that eventually causes you to have a baby. People already know that [they’re pregnant]. [T]hat is why they want to end the pregnancy, because they cannot or do not want to become parents to a new baby. That thinking has already been part of their decision-making process…They don’t think, ‘Oh, wait. Are you serious? Being pregnant is how babies happen? I thought having an abortion was just a fun way to spend $400. Well, I’m out of here.’  They’ve made their decision by the time they get into the car to go to the clinic, not halfway through the process. It’s punishing people who have already made up their minds.”

The new law, which will go into effect in two weeks if there are no further appeals, may also raise the cost of abortions in the state of Texas, as sonograms are an expensive medical procedure.

Hannah Zeavin is a senior in Yale College.  She is the editor-in-chief of Broad Recognition.