Introduction of the Issue Related to the Bill
Discussing Issue and Related Legislation Bill
The issue of unwanted pregnancies and abortion has been on the current agenda in Virginia. Numerous legislations have been passed to assist the youth and other adults in planning parenthood, as well as in preventing pregnancies. A great number of contraceptives infiltrate the market each year, promising ultra-protection from conception and the masses flock to departmental stores for condoms. Nevertheless, this has not managed to eradicate unwanted pregnancies completely and, therefore, abortion, as the final option out of such pregnancies, continues to raise contentious debates on morality and ethics among Americans. In addition, the necessity of ultrasound condition is also at issue because there are significant controversies concerning the reasonableness of this action. Introducing involuntary intrusion could be considered as sexual abuse, as well as humiliation of human rights. The medical invasion has moral and ethical underpinnings because the doctor’s decision to introduce the procedure implicitly withdraws women’s right to abortion.
Facts and Details about the Bill
The original name of the Bill is House Bill No. 462: Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. It was issued by the House Committee for Courts of Justice on February 10, 2012. The bill seeks to revise sections 18.2-76 of the Code of Virginia that refers to ultrasound procedure, being part of informed consent for abortion. The informed consent for invasive medical procedures, as well as the cases of emergency of executing abortion, is on the discussion agenda.
Background/Significance and Scope of the Problem
Information, History of the Bull, and Impetus for the Bill Introduction
House Bill No. 462 was introduced to parliament in February 2012. Prior to its introduction, the Virginia Board of Health held a June Board meeting during which it agreed upon the advice of experts to exempt Virginia’s Women Health Facilities that operated efficiently for the past four decades, excluding outpatient wings from being affected by the new building construction requirements. This decision sought to simplify the work of facilities that provided reproductive health care to women coupled with giving them a chance at a legal and safe first-trimester abortion. If it had not exempted women, they would be required to pay for these services and the healthcare centers would spend millions of dollars in compliance with the new construction requirements. Del. Kathy Byron, the Republican representative for Lynchburg was responsible for sponsoring the bill that required the refurbishment of abortion clinics in Richmond (Bassett, 2012).
However, in September Virginia Board of Health reversed its previous decision after Attorney general Ken Cuccinelli and his office submitted the provision to the Board. This new decision forced existing health care centers to search for funds and comply with the new construction requirements. Additionally, in the interim period, between the June and September Board Meetings, Governor Bob McDonnell appointed an anti-abortion activist, Dr. John Seeds to the Board of Health. Dr. Seeds is currently the vice-chairperson of the special interest group OB – GYNS for Life, which puts the Board under great pressure.
This initial bill made it a mandatory requirement for women to undergo invasive transvaginal ultrasounds before they could legally procure an abortion. The sponsors of the Bill were not completely wrong in suggesting the administration of this type of ultrasound (transvaginal) because any other ultrasound than a trans-vaginal procedure is practically useless the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. The idea behind suggesting this ultrasound, according to Governor Bob McDonnell, was to establish the gestational age of the fetus in order to present the mother with all the necessary information before women make a decision to terminate the pregnancy. In addition, the procedure would prove helpful in the prevention of complications during abortions. The advocates of the Bill insist on the fact ultrasound should be a mandatory requirement, yet the government must take measures to prevent physician malpractice. Finally, and perhaps the most plausible impetus for the Bill was a necessary amendment to the informed consent law in Virginia.
Literature Review Relevant to the Issue
Numerous research studies have been dedicated to the issue of informed consent for abortion as women’s constitutional rights (Spear, 2004; Lanfranchi, 2008; Woodcock, 2011; Atkinson, 2011). Apart from legal-rational, ethical and moral underpinnings have also been presented to define the reasonableness of the adopted bill. In order to define all underpinnings and controversies, the review literature will provide a wider outlook on the problem of abortion, informed consent, as well as the rationale for invasive procedures before an abortion. Constitutional rights will also be discussed in light of the urgent dilemma.
The studies by Atkinson (2011) focus on considering the meaning and context of informed consent of women who plan to make an abortion. The scholar argues that the concept of informed consent, which was originally introduced in health care law, is not congruent with the doctrine in the context of abortion. According to Atkinson (2011), “an underlining conception of women as not solely status-defined…has led to women being “shifted” from treatment as the first track, classical liberal theory individuals to second-track, “abnormal” persons, depending on the needs of society as determined by those in positions of power” (p. 619). Thus, this assumption demonstrates increased public interest in women’s reproductive functions, as well as natural disposition to motherhood, which explains the contemporary distorted concept of informed consent related to abortion. The latter focuses on mental health outcomes of abortion rather than on the right to self-determination. Unequal treatment, therefore, could become a solid underpinning for revisiting the Bill.
Along with Atkinson (2011), Spear (2004) undermines the reasonableness and objectivity of understanding informed consent regarding abortion. In the studies, the researcher reconsiders the relation of informed content to the right of women to select and full discloser. From an ethical perspective, nurses and physicians informing women about the consequences of abortion implicitly expect women to change their decisions, which could lead to unwanted and disabled children’s birth. At the same time, informing women about the risk they will take during can still be stressful for a woman who has already decided to abort the pregnancy. To explain the moral dilemma presented above, Woodcock (2011) considers abortion counseling and its influence on women’s decisions and health. Within this perspective, the scholar argues, “abortion is an important and especially illuminating example of a medical procedure for which the process of securing informed consent ought to be context-sensitive and highly responsive to the needs of each individual patient” (p. 496). Therefore, health care professionals supporting abortion encounter a dilemma concerning which information can be provided.
To emphasize the significance of the issue, Lanfranchi (2008) discusses informed consent regarding abortion from a governmental perspective. In particular, the studies criticize the inappropriate tackling of the issue by the government that creates significant ethical and legal barriers to shaping informed consent. By concealing pertinent information from the public, the governmental authorities general more biases around the issue. Specific attention requires the connection between abortion and breast cancer risk. In particular, while considering the problem of abortion rates, the state administration focuses on social and economic consequences rather than on the mental and physical welfare of women. Reluctance to introduce wider access of women to information about abortion, as well as possible to make choices prevents from establishing the accuracy and efficiency of ultrasound procedures.
Although the concept of abortion is on the current agenda, the informed consent required in the Bill relies on the initiative to reduce the number of women planning to terminate their pregnancy. Most physicians believe that seeing an ultrasound image of an unborn child could prevent women from doing an abortion. Such an assumption could be justified from a narrow-focused perspective because it allows doctors to manipulate women’s constitutional rights. In response to these statements, Abreu (2012) discusses the role of physicians in carrying out invasive ultrasound procedures, as well as how it influences women’s health. At this point, the researcher criticizes the instruments and approaches to exempting trans-vaginal procedures. An extensive overview of legal grounds in Oklahoma, Abreu (2012) notes that physicians are not entitled to acquire images, let a woman dress up, and explain the image. The cases of North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi also do not require health care professionals to be involved in the explanatory issues. At this point, the revised version of the Virginia House Bill is justified in these terms because it includes the provisions that require physicians to inform about all details of the procedure to women planning an abortion. In order to emphasize the importance of the invasive medical procedure, Abreu (2012) describes different types of ultrasound testing that can be carried through transabdominal and transvaginal sonograms to determine gestational age. The point is that the physician is responsible for abortion counseling; he/she should also decide whether these procedures are clearly necessary. According to the law, patients have the right to refuse to undergo an ultrasound, even though the procedure is medically justified. So, in case the procedure is not necessary, carrying out the procedure is prohibited by standards of care.
The above-presented studies elaborate on the ethical conflict between physicians’ responsibility and patients’ choice. At this point, the studies by Graham et al. (2010) have presented a survey of women’s perceptions concerning pre-abortion ultrasound scans. The questionnaires completed by ultrasonographers reveal mixed views on the necessity of seeing the images. Nevertheless, the interviewed women still expressed their desire to see the images of unborn children. The emerged controversies introduced grounds for ethical dilemmas both for women and for physicians. In support of this assumption, Wiebe and Adams (2009) have presented the study of women’s attitudes to prenatal ultrasound procedures. The researchers have insisted on the benefits and feasibility of introducing pre-abortion ultrasound procedures for women. Similar conclusions have been made in the studies by Maaji et al. (2010). In particular, it has been discovered that 94% of pregnant women supported the disclosure of gender of an unborn child during prenatal scanning. The rest 5 % of women were reluctant to know about the fetus’s gender because the general examination satisfied them (Wiebe and Adams, 2009). The studies have also defined the necessity for sinologists to be distinct and accurate concerning what they should say during the testing procedure, particularly when it refers to fetal gender in order to minimize the stress imposed on women.
The above-presented reviews introduce a deep insight into the problem of abortion and informed consent, as well as focuses on ethical, moral, social, and legal dimensions. Most of the studies are specifically connected with the benefits and pitfalls of introducing prenatal testing and its influence on conflicting conditions among physicians. In addition, understanding women’s perceptions and their constitutional right to abortion provide an alternative outlook on the Virginia House Bill.
Social, Economic, Political, and Ethical Considerations Related to the Issue
Under Virginia House, Bill annihilates the compulsory ultrasound law because it infringes security and privacy of physician-patients relationships. Concealing the picture of ultrasound procedures from women without consent is aimed at increasing profits rather than at improving their physical and mental welfare. The Senate Health and Education Committee expressed concern with preventing the annihilation of the ultrasound bill and abortion issues. According to the Bill provisions, the first-trimester abortion clinics should meet similar standards for building medical facilities (Bassett, 2013). The Bill sponsors repealing the Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers have declared that they plan to continue their standing for clinical development (Bassett, 2013). From a conservative viewpoint, the Bill strives to reduce the abortion rates among women, as well as increase women’s awareness about the decision they made.
With regard to the above-presented considerations, there is a significant confrontation between Democratic and Republican forces concerning the abortion dilemma. On the one hand, the concept of informed consent about abortion raises the issue of women’s health protection. On the other hand, it touches on women’s right to independent decision-making. At this point, most politicians force physicians to manage the abortion practices and take greater control of the abortion rates. Such as political perspective, however, contradict the moral and ethical issues because mandatory ultrasound should be carefully considered in the medical sphere rather than in the political sphere. Government overreach is another serious obstacle to revisiting the main provisions of the Bill. At this point, the politician Bob McDonnel has had a potent impact on amending the ultrasound legislature and joined the Republicans’ negative attitude to the HPV vaccine mandate (Bassett, 2012).
This phenomenon consists in shaping personal opinions and beliefs regarding abortion and morality. Additionally, the matter carries political, economical, and ethical ramifications, its justifications are mostly social and this aspect raises questions about the integrity of politicians sponsoring or opposing the bill. However, at a more basic level, speculation over how this new bill shall affect the ordinary citizens in the state is beneficial. There are several possible effects because the bill has already come into force. However, since Virginia shall be the seventh state to enact such a legislature against abortion in the name of informed consent, it is also necessary to provide an analysis of its status (Miller, 2012). First, as noted above, this bill is failed attempt to fight against abortion handle women’s rights and freedom. As a result, the public, and particularly the female voting population, expresses its discontent with the law because it subjugates women to the government authority (Sherfinski, 2012; Miller, 2012). This statement can be easily misconstrued and, therefore, the government should respect women’s decisions before implementing the bill.
The legal underpinning of abortion is justified because it allows women to carry out ultrasound procedures in a secure manner (Sherfinski, 2012). John Locke is renowned for his social contract theory as an explanation for law and jurisprudence and leadership and democracy combined. In brief, the social contract posits that before the law, man existed in a state of chaotic anarchy whereby there was no leader and it was a matter of survival for the fittest (Miller, 2012). Consequently, in exchange for a peaceful and orderly life, it became necessary for the generation of a social contract between the society and the leader or in this context, the government (Rousseau, 2008). Society gave up part of its freedom and agreed to be ruled. In exchange, the government would maintain law and order and ensure equitable distribution of resources while simultaneously being held accountable by the same people that put it in power.
With that insight in mind, the United States is known globally for being a pioneer in championing human rights. The Bill of Rights has practically been adopted by every nation in the world and the reputation is remarkable. Consequently, the abortion law is void of this virtue especially because this bill covers pertinent issues that politicians consider in such fields as education, healthcare, economic growth, and social setting.
There are two apparent ethical dimensions to this issue; the first is from a professional perspective and the second from a gender equality perspective. From the professional point of view, doctors are experts in the field. Therefore, it would seem wise to trust their judgment and give them credit especially in matters discussed above (Ferrell, et al., 2012). When the government, which is an administrative function, interferes with the work of an unrelated field, it raises questions on how effective the separation of powers is in Virginia. Conventionally, the government, especially politicians, should not indulge in unnecessary debates that they know very little about. This stand might appear unreasonable with regard to the need to have checks and balances in all sectors. However, doctors have the moral and professional authority to decide on matters touching on health care issues. More importantly, given that doctors came up with the issue of ultrasound, they stand a better chance to make informed decisions that differ from those made by politicians.
On a gender equality level, Virginia’s State Senator, Janet Howell introduced the amendment to the bill that would require any man “seeking medication for erectile dysfunction to undergo a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before he could acquire a prescription for the same” (Sherfinski, 2012). The response provides a very convincing analogy to the current bill (Greenberg, 2012). More importantly, the State Senator asserted that ultrasound was both invasive and medically unnecessary.
The mandatory ultrasound, which is being imposed on women who wish to have an abortion is not being paid for by the government, but by the women themselves or their insurance schemes. Considering that the price for a trans-vaginal ultrasound is $525, this decision creates serious challenges for the woman who has decided to have an abortion (Greenberg, 2012). This assertion holds given that the common citizen who is seeking that abortion is probably not financially stable. As mentioned earlier in this paper, young women cover the greater category of patients who plan to terminate their pregnancy. Additionally, this category of patients often conceals the fact about abortions in order to prevent publicity and punishment from their families. This aspect goes back to the idea of abortions that put the lives of both mother and the child under the threat. At this point, the right to abortion is constitutional because it is aimed at preventing lethal outcomes.
The main issue with this new legislation revolves around morality coupled with people’s take on what it is moral or immoral. Abortion has caused rigid debates on the problem of informed consent and compulsory ultrasound. Proponents and opponents have taken clear sides on the issue, although some of the hypotheses could not be assigned to either of the sides. On abortion, most health care professionals are totally opposed to the practice, even in cases of rape or the mother’s life is in danger, very stringent measures have to be taken to ensure that there is no other possibility of saving both mother and child before sanctioning abortion on the last resort (Kaczor, 2011). Governor Bob McDonnell stated that there is no political motive behind the passage of this Bill; yet, the politician was concerned with revisiting the informed consent law adopted in 2001.
Proponent and Opponent Arguments
Major proponents for this Bill are the Republicans and other anti-abortion activists like the OB-GYNs for Life. The opponents include democrats and other liberalists like the Virginia Coalition to Protect Women’s Health, formed in 2011 to ensure that women could access affordable reproductive health services and procure abortions accordingly without unnecessary delays or interruptions due to technicalities or political inhibitions.
Interest Groups/Individuals Supporting the Bill
The democrats and other critics from the state forced McDonnell and his republican coterie to consult further and amend the Bill into its current state (Sherfinski, 2012, p.46). Critics argued that such an invasive procedure as required by the government was equivalent to state-sponsored rape and as such, a violation of the woman’s constitutional rights. Some define it as “cruel and unusual punishment” tantamount to slavery because the woman cannot make an independent decision concerning her own body without governmental intrusion or supervision (Sherfinski, 2012, 46).
However, McDonnell’s rebuttal was that the mandatory ultrasound Bill was just an elaborative statement about informed consent in healthcare provision. He explains that the Bill requires physicians to provide women with the images of the ultrasound, and if she decides to have an abortion within twenty-four hours after the ultrasound. The woman reserves the right to close her eyes, but this shall not stop the physician from holding the image in her face. She can also opt-out of listening to the fetal heartbeat. Critics are enraged at this provision protesting that it is in furtherance of the typical humiliation of women who choose to abort.
The procedures outlined within the mandatory ultrasound Bill are perfectly ethical and moral. On the opposing side, the democrats and other liberalists received this bill with considerable ire and consternation. In their view, this Bill decapitates doctors because the idea of recommending ultrasound falls squarely within the medical prowess and circumstantial requirements from case to case. Consequently, bypassing this bill, the government strives to strike the balance between legal and ethical underpinnings of the case.
Interest Groups/Individuals Withdrawing the Bill
The opponents’ argument is that it is doctors, not politicians, who first discovered the need for an ultrasound procedure (Johnson & Lambert, 2010, p. 45). This assertion emphasizes that whatever risks politicians may undergo, doctors have enough skills, experience, and equipment necessary to handle this issue independently. Secondly, opponents have quoted the Advanced Nursing Practice has categorically advised that doctors and parents should completely avoid ultrasounds carried out for other purposes than medical ones. This is in view of the fact that ultrasounds are actually harmful to fetal health and in reality, they are simply superfluous and not medically indicated. The risks that attach to the ultrasound procedure include the possibility of infections that pregnant women might face. In addition, observable physical effects of ultrasound on fetal tissue can lead to an increase in temperature, visible vibrations, and lacerations on the tissue that form into cavities, not to mention the other possible effects that are not observable, such as radiations (Greenberg, 2012, p. 6). Consequently, the opponents of the bill argue that the ultrasound procedure is not justified in ethical terms because involuntary invasion could be considered as abuse and is prohibited by law.
This practice of enacting mandatory ultrasound legislation is neither new nor restricted in Virginia. At least twenty-one states have passed this bill, including North Dakota and Texas. However, the rest of the states simply require women to procure an abortion after they receive information about ultrasound, either through verbal counseling or in a written form. This action prevents the physician from litigation especially in case of complications arising where ultrasound would have revealed it in advance. The physician who complies with these requirements takes full responsibility for the procedure.
The Virginia law shall require physicians to ensure that the mother carries out ultrasound twenty-four hours before an abortion. In addition to this requirement, the doctor should provide a woman with the images of the ultrasound. The woman has the right to reject the testing procedure, but the doctor is obliged to offer this service and explains the benefits of ultrasound before a woman plans to terminate the pregnancy.
Nursing and Human Services Perspective
Discussing Perspectives
The problem of abortion and informed concern should, first of all, relate to professional ethics in health care, particularly to physician-patient relations. From the medical perspective introduced by Advanced Practice Nursing at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, nurses should still resort to ultrasound practices to ensure that women should consider the advantages and disadvantages of abortion (Advanced Practice Nursing, 2013). In particular, as soon as a woman expresses informed consent, the task of nurses is to conduct an extensive examination of the woman’s body to define whether there are certain deviations putting her life at risk. Transabdominal ultrasound, therefore, is the best solution for women to check their health indices, with no harm to their health. Such ultrasound can also help physicians to detect ectopic pregnancies at an early stage.
The relationship between patients and healthcare professionals is an important issue that needs to be discussed in the given context. In particular, the physicians take ethical and legal responsibilities under various conditions of performing ultrasound. In particular, their primary goal consists in informing women about the state of the fetus, as well as possible side effects of abortion. In case, there are no barriers to terminating a pregnancy, physicians should not impose pressure on women. At the same time, there are cases when abortion is the only solution for women to improve their health and, therefore, ultrasound procedure could be regarded as one of the most efficient ways for making the decision.
Lawmakers’ debate on the Mandatory Ultrasound Bill should also tackle the issue of informed consent and selected disclosure that cause much consideration concerning the ethicality of actions introduced by the politicians. At this point, analysis of the Bill focuses on the inappropriate policies of Senators against women’s rights to reject Ultrasound. In addition, Virginia is among the first state that has introduced the revised version and reconsidered the role of ultrasound in health care.
The Virginia Board of Health is of the opinion that whereas the new Mandatory Ultrasound Bill and the construction regulations are a step forward in terms of public health, there is a better way of dealing with their promulgation into law. This is of particular concern to Governor Bob Mc Donnell and Attorney General Cuccinelli’s approach that saw the board reversing an earlier decision and ratifying Del. Kathy Byron’s regulations regarding construction. This decision saw the passage of a requirement of over 20 abortion and reproductive health care centers into meeting construction regulations for hospitals that were very costly and thus nearly financially crippled the healthcare centers. These centers were all outpatient facilities. Therefore, not all the renovations were medically necessary for the kind of patients that they deal with.
Strictly following this decision implies appointing anti-abortion policies and submitting them to the administrative organs to take measures and provide legal and secure services. Such an approach should bear no political or economic grounds to exclude any ethical or moral constraints. Possibly, the governor and the attorney general overstepped their boundaries in coercing patients to ratify their recommendations. If this is the case, the constitutionality of the Bill is questionable (Fremgen, 2012, p. 95).
Personal Views on the Proposed Legislation
I am also pro-life and so I would never encourage an expectant woman to decide on abortion. I am also very grateful that I can think this way and that I have the right to freely express my opinion and beliefs. With this in mind, my firm belief is every person can be entitled to make decisions that seem the most rational and relevant to his/her situation. At the same time, besides personal opinion and democratic trends in society, the social and political environment should not be underestimated. The frequency of cases of women who plan to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is high, as well as reasons for their decisions. Therefore, one cannot exclude the possibility that women could resort to this step, even though their attitude to abortion is negative (Weitz, 2010, p. 168). Considering that such pregnancies are unwanted, the mental state of a woman is under the question, and this aspect underscores why some of the cases should still be regarded from both viewpoints.
Making abortion a constitutional right does not mean that the state approves this practice because this contradicts ethical and moral principles (Weitz, 2010, p. 169). However, the state has to choose the optimal solution where the only option is confined to presenting the exception for some group of women to ignore the procedure. It is understandable that this decision may be interpreted as excessive permissiveness; yet, the volatile predispositions of the contemporary youth, as well as the impossibility of government to control health issues effectively, makes the former consider all possible alternatives.
With regard to my personal position, the adoption of the Virginia House Bill is quite reasonable and justified from both ethical and legal perspectives because it does not place any pressure on women’s decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not (Weitz, 2010, p. 168). Nonetheless, the controversies and protests provoked by the introduction of the Bill have the right to exist because the Bill directly relates to such aspects as information disclosure and informed consent. The latter may undermine women’s constitutional rights, which poses threats to the possibility of accepting this law. From a utilitarian perspective, however, the Bill will have positive consequences for health care in general and women’s health in particular.
Policy/Bill Recommendations
Introductory Comments
Virginia House Bill No. 462 touches on many ethical, legal, social, and political dilemmas. This is of particular concern to such issues as women’s constitutional right to abortion, the importance of informed consent, birth control initiative, and women’s perception of mandatory ultrasound initiative. From a legal perspective, the idea of mandatory ultrasound contradicts the established legal provision and violates human rights in accordance with the constitution. From an ethical perspective, the government’s decision to issue the amendment sought to reduce the number of abortions and increase women’s awareness of the negative influence of pregnancy termination on their mental and physical health. At the same time, forcing women to undergo the procedure can also put the patients under psychological pressure, which is another legal and ethical concern. From a political perspective, the Bill focuses on the inconsistent governmental policy reducing the responsibilities and rights of physicians who are also involved in the ethical confrontation.
Despite the above-presented constraints, the revised version of the Bill has the right to exist because it excludes any compulsory underpinning for pregnant women planning an abortion. More importantly, the Bill contributes to the physical and moral welfare of patients because it implies conducting procedures for the purpose of defining physical conditions permitting women to make abortions. Probably, negative indicators for abortion, which can sometimes threaten women’s health, can make them think over carefully of her decision to terminate the pregnancy because this one could be the only one to deliver a child. Some provisions of the Bill could be considered to be reasonable because they emphasize the constitutional rights of women. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a fully anti-abortion bill.
Recommendations
The Mandatory Ultrasound Bill is credible legislation in terms of the spirit of the law, as well as the intention of the lawmakers, which is to grant mothers full disclosure so that they can make an informed decision while procuring an abortion. However, the proposed issue is controversial because it puts doubts on people’s minds in terms of the political motives of the motion movers. Consequently, it is in jeopardy of being rejected out rightly by the public, not because it is a bad law, but because of the approach taken by those who passed it into law. Therefore, it is expedient that clarification of the introductory stages is granted for the sake of ensuring the survival of this Bill. Additionally, clarity is necessary for the effectiveness or the justification of the Bill in its current state, considering that trans-abdominal ultrasound is not capable of indicating gestational age. Thirdly, the Bill has raised issues regarding the credibility of the medical practitioners, which is a risky move especially if one aims at a harmonious community where respect is accorded equally to all. It follows then that this bill may have to be eliminated before it triggers the myriad contentions it has the potential to unravel, starting with the floodgate of litigation where the state is likely to be charged with rape, which lies in the invasive vaginal penetration against the woman’s will. Consequently, to avoid the inherent complications of the bill, the opponents and proponents should find a common ground and restore peace and clarity in society.
As an alternative to mandatory ultrasound procedures, the adoption of HPV vaccine law could take place. In contrast to the ultrasound bill, this law is applicable to women who seek informed consent procedures to be accepted. It also requires the government to send a letter of consent to patients informing them about the purpose of vaccination, as well as its availability. Proponents of vaccination are aware of the fact that vaccination differs significantly from mandatory ultrasound bills because it is more associated with public health issues. Moreover, Virginia House Bill adoption is predetermined by the government’s decision to take greater control of public health issues, as well abortion rates in the state.
Finally, to avoid controversies and public discontent with the Bill, further amendments should be introduced to the bill to exclude all possible pressure on women planning an abortion. In particular, the government should give greater authority to physicians who perform scanning procedures because they are more experienced in deciding whether women should undergo ultrasound testing. The focus on anti-abortion legislature focuses largely on the immoral premise of abortion rather than on women’s physical state and their constitutional right to decide whether she wants to deliver a child or not. At this point, the possibility of determining the gestational age of the fetus should be a reasonable alternative to solving the problem. Therefore, the government should introduce a deeper analysis of the consequences of the legislature on political and social aspects of public health.
References
Abreu, S. H. (2012). The Doctor’s Dilemma with the Oklahoma Abortion Law Ultrasound Requirement. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 37(2), 253-287.
Advanced Practice Nursing (2013) Ectopic Pregnancy. Cedars-Sinai. Web.
Atkinson, E. (2011). Abnormal Persons or Embedded Individuals? Tracing the Development of Informed Consent Regulations for Abortion. Harvard Journal Of Law & Gender, 34(2), 617-670.
Bassett, L (2013). Virginia Mandatory Ultrasound Law’s Repeal Block by Stat Gop.Huff Post Politics. Web.
Bassett, L. (2012). Mandatory Ultrasound vs. HPV Vaccine: Virginia Lawmakers Debate Government Overreach.Huff Post Politics. Web.
Ferrell, O., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2012). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases. Mason, MA: Cengage Learning.
Fremgen, B. (2012). Medical Law and Ethics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gipson, D., Koenig, M., & Hindin, J. (2008). The Effects of Unintended Pregnancy on Infant, Child, and Parental Health: A Review of the Literature. Studies in Family Planning, 39(1), 18-38.
Graham, O. O., Ankrett, S. S., & Killick, S. R. (2010). Viewing ultrasound scan images prior to termination of pregnancy: Choice for women or conflict for ultrasonographers?. Journal Of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 30(5), 484-488.
Greenberg, J. (2012). Virginia State Senator Janet Howell adds rectal exam to anti-abortion bill in the amendment. International Business Times, 6.
Johnson, A., & Lambert, C. (2010). Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader’s Eye-Opening Journey across the LifeLine. Colorado, CO: Tyndale House Publishing
Kaczor, C. (2011). The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lanfranchi, A. (2008). The federal government and academic texts as barriers to informed consent. Issues In Law & Medicine, 24(1), 61-69.
Maaji, S. M., Ekele, B. A., Bello, S. O., & Morhason-Bello, I. O. (2010). Do women want disclosure of fetal gender during a prenatal ultrasound scan? Annals Of African Medicine, 9(1), 11-14.
Miller, M. (2012). Abandoned: The untold stories of the abortion wars. Charlotte, NC: Planned Parenthood Leader’s Eye-Opening Journey across the LifeLine. Colorado, CO: Tyndale House Publishing.
Rousseau, J. J. (2008). The Social Contract. New York, NY: Cosimo, Inc. Saint Benedict Press.
Sherfinski, D. (2012). Bob McDonnell, Virginia Governor, Signs Mandatory
Spear, H. (2004). Regarding abortion: informed consent or selective disclosure?. Nursing Forum, 39(2), 31-32.
Weitz, T. (2010). Rethinking the Mantra that Abortion Should be “Safe, Legal, and Rare”. Journal of Women’s History, 22 (3), 161-172.
Wiebe, E. R., & Adams, L. (2009). Women’s perceptions about seeing the ultrasound picture before an abortion. European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 14(2), 97-102.
Woodcock, S. (2011). Abortion Counseling and the Informed Consent Dilemma. Bioethics, 25(9), 495-504.