Back to the Future: Antichoice Activists and (Mis)Informed Consent 
It's only been about a month since the midterm election that brought significant prochoice victories, including the defeat of South Dakota's draconian abortion ban and the rejection of ballot initiatives in California and Oregon that would have required parental notification before a minor could obtain an abortion. And yet, it is already time to go back to work as antiabortion advocates are gearing up once again to continue restricting access to abortion services.
Stephanie Simon reported in the LA Times shortly after the election that one of the antichoice movement's primary goals will be to "expand or rewrite `informed consent' laws" - a favorite and perennial tactic. According to a recent analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, written counseling materials often contain medically inaccurate, out-of-date or biased information - violating a core tenet of the principles of informed consent.
Informed consent - the concept that individuals have a right to receive relevant, accurate and unbiased information prior to receiving medical care so they can make sound decisions regarding treatment - is a bedrock principle of medical ethics. Moreover, the obligation to provide such information is mandated by statute or case law in all 50 states.
Under the banner of informed consent, a majority of states have enacted abortion counseling laws requiring physicians to provide specified information to women seeking abortions. Many of these laws require the state health department to develop detailed written materials that must be distributed to women prior to the procedure.
But these state-developed materials do not always measure up to the gold standard of informed consent. Particularly with regard to certain hot-button issues, the information presented is either out-of-date, biased or both. In some cases, the state goes so far as to include information that is patently inaccurate or incomplete, lending credence to the charge that states' abortion counseling mandates are sometimes intended less to inform women about the abortion procedure than to discourage them from seeking abortions altogether.
The Guttmacher analysis, conducted along with our former colleague Chinué Turner Richardson (how's law school treating you?), identified 22 states where state health departments had developed written counseling materials, in most cases covering specific topics required by law. While most of the information on abortion is consistent with current scientific findings, the following were among the most common inaccuracies:
Taken together, our analysis of state abortion counseling laws and the materials doctors are required to provide to women seeking abortions reveals that basic public health principles often are disregarded in favor of furthering a highly politicized antiabortion agenda. Providing medically inaccurate information violates a core tenet of sound public health policy and seriously jeopardizes a woman's ability to make an informed decision regarding her own life and health.
Sadly, it appears that we can expect more of the same in the coming months and years - making it all the more urgent that state policymakers, the media and the public be better educated about the various issues surrounding informed consent and written abortion counseling materials.
Visit the State Center on the Guttmacher Institute's website for more information on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the states (updated monthly) as well as the current status of state policies.
Editor's note: Elizabeth Nash's last post was co-written with Rachel Benson Gold.
Reprinted from www.rhreality.org with permission
KEYWORDS: antiabortion, Antichoice, ballot
Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!
| < Help Al Gore Seek Justice For Our Planet From Congress | Detroit HARDBALL !! > |
