STAFF EDIT: “Ultra”-sound legislation?

Abortion remains one of the prime conversation topics of this election year, and it’s evolution as an issue continues to garner public attention. Advocates for and against abortion have clashed on appropriate proposals to ensure each woman must undergo an ultrasound before procuring an abortion. Initially, the Virginia legislation would have required women to endure an invasive ultrasound, since most abortions are done during the first trimester of pregnancy. However, when proposed legislation was under review, many knew that such extreme measures would deter voters in the Virginia Senate. According to an article published in The Washington Post yesterday, the amended bill promoted an external ultrasound, and was not required for victims of rape or incest. Nevertheless, women who know their developing fetus suffers from birth defects would not be exempt from the ultrasound procedure.

While the bill is moving forward recently, the concept is nothing new. Enforcing a law regarding mandatory ultrasounds has been debated before, but since the Virginia Senate is much more conservative today, there are more members in favor of getting this law passed. According to another article published in The Washington Post earlier this month, conservatives intend to take advantage of their situation and pass as many laws on abortion as possible.

While it’s commendable that a compromise has been reached regarding the details of the bill, there are still details that could be oppressive. The bill will require many more ultrasounds and put a significant strain on health resources. Furthermore, the bill is clearly intended as an emotional plea to deter women from getting an abortion at all. Dragging out the decision process where abortion is concerned can elicit much more emotional pain on a potential mother and her family. Furthermore, by deeming rape the only instance where abortion seems more “acceptable,” the legislation will beg a broader question as to what the government deems appropriate circumstances for an abortion. A debate of ethics and morality that cannot be dictated by law alone, for that would be a serious violation of free will. We are at a point financially where the government has to be frugal with its funds, and pouring money into such a convoluted process will put the government and its citizens in deeper trouble.