House Bill 15 Intrusive to Women (Literally)

Texas House Bill 15, also known as the Sonogram Bill, has received much attention since its controversial arrival in the Texas Legislature. Passed by the Legislature and then signed by Texas Governor Rick Perry last May, the bill requires doctors to perform a sonogram on pregnant women prior to receiving an abortion.  Additionally, the women must listen to the heart-beat and receive a detailed description of the fetus, including body dimensions, presence of limbs, and cardiac activity. While the bill claims to

“Protect the life and health of the women seeking or undergoing an abortion”, there are few things I can think of as being more damaging to the well-being of the women. The bill acts in a condescending manner by suggesting that any women about to undergo an abortion are not already considerably aware of the ramifications of the procedure. I believe it is safe to say that a women who is about to receive an abortion, for whatever reason, is already experiencing a considerable amount of psychological distress. Having to view a sonogram before an abortion is not protective of the mental health of the woman; therefore, the bill is contradictory.

I would not necessarily consider myself a supporter of abortion.  However, I am a strong advocate for women’s reproductive rights and I believe that this bill raises many concerns regarding those rights.  Aside from the ethical debate over the nature of abortion itself, many other arguments have arisen with HB 15. One of the debates is over the violation of the 1^st Amendment by forcing doctors to deliver politically motivated speech to patients who may or may not wish to hear it.  Additionally, there is the argument is that the cost of the sonogram may prevent people from getting an abortion, thus making the procedure economically discriminatory. However, the most intriguing argument I have heard is the one for protection of 4^th Amendment rights.

HB 15 requires the display of “live real-time obstetric ultrasound images in a quality consistent with current medical practice in a manner so that the women may view them”. Until a woman is at least 12 weeks pregnant, an abdominal sonogram will not read fetal activity due to size. To fulfill the requirements of the bill, a woman must undergo what is known as a Transvaginal sonogram.  Much more invasive, the transvaginal sonogram is conducted by inserting an ultrasound probe into the women’s vagina. This uncomfortable, and often times painful procedure, is by no means medically necessary, however, if a women less than 12 weeks pregnant wishes to undergo an abortion, it would be the only way to fulfill the requirement set forth in the bill. The 4th Amendment protects people from unreasonable seizures and searches.  Opponents of the Sonogram Bill argue that this may be construe as a violation of this and interpreted as an unreasonable search.

While there are many sides to this debate and many voices joining in, I have the words of Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth (R.) to be most suiting. When questioned why he voted against the Texas Sonogram Bill, Wentworth replied,

“Because I am a man and will never be pregnant myself or have that decision to make, I am uncomfortable with the fact that it is primarily men who are leading the charge to write laws about what a woman must do or not do, when one of my gender got her pregnant in the first place. … Personally, I prefer adoption to abortion … . But I cannot, nor should the government, attempt to impose my moral or religious convictions on the entire female population of Texas as a matter of state law.”