Informed consent upheld
Decision lauded as a major victory for those with prolife convictions.
From, The Kentucky Citizen Digest, January/February, 2001.

Pro-lifers were handed a major victory just days before Christmas when a federal judge up-held a law requiring full disclosure to women seeking abortions. The law, known as “informed consent,” passed in 1998 and mandated that women considering abortion be offered information about the abortion procedure, medical risks and the gestational age of the baby. The law also requires that a mother be told of child-support laws, adoption alternatives and the availability of medical assistance if she decides to keep her child.

“I am so pleased,” said Sen. Katie Stine (R-Ft. Thomas), the bill’s sponsor. “We put so much work into passing the legislation and then defending it, it is now very gratifying to know that women can benefit from its protections.”

The ruling was a big surprise to both sides involved in the case since U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II was the same judge who struck down the state’s ban on partial-birth abortion. A spokesman for Kentucky Right to Life, Michael Janocik, said his group is elated by Heyburn’s ruling: “Kentucky Right to Life Association is confident that when women are provided with the truth about abortion, they will choose alternatives that are compatible with not only the dignity of the woman but also respect the dignity of the child growing in the womb.”

While pro-lifers have been rejoicing over the decision, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is depicting the ruling as a blow to “reproductive freedom.” The ACLU’s suit against the law claimed that it placed an undue burden on women who may travel long distances to obtain an abortion. The law requires a 24-hour reflection period between the first consultation and the scheduled abortion.

Janocik says that this line of reasoning is contradictory to the ACLU’s previous statements lauding the release of RU-486. The ACLU hailed the new drug as a boon to women seeking abortion. But RU-486 requires three visits to the doctor over a two-week period —a burden much greater than the 24-hour wait required under informed consent.

Heyburn sided with pro-lifers, failing to see any “undue hardship.” In dismissing the argument, he noted that nothing prevents a telephone consultation between a woman and her doctor, thus eliminating any burden.

Those in favor of the law explained in court that it is standard medical procedure for a physician to tell patients fully about procedures, options and all potential risks involved. They further emphasized that patients should not be expected to make a split-second decision.

“It is a common-sense law that seeks to protect the health and well-being of women by providing them with factual information regarding the health risks of abortion, fetal development and positive alternatives,” Janocik said.

Diana Cahill was one who had  testified in the case earlier in the year. As a post-abortion counselor at a Woman’s Choice Pregnancy Care Center in Louisville, Cahill has seen first-hand the emotional and psychological effects abortion has had on women. Cahill, herself, has had an abortion and said that she did not fully understand the decision she was making. “I know I wouldn’t have had an abortion.... if only I had been shown pictures of fetal development,” Cahill said.

While a few critics lament the ruling, many see it as a turning point in the abortion debate—outlawing the practice of keeping women in the dark about their options. That should be a no-brainer for anyone who purports to be “pro-choice.”
 

Key Family Foundation Contacts: Kent Ostrander, Executive Director Martin Cothran, Senior Associate Policy Analyst