On Tuesday, January 31, 2012, the Virginia assembly passed a bill that would require a woman to have an ultrasound before an abortion, the first of several measures this year that are expected to dramatically alter abortion rights in the state. The legal implication for this measure are far-reaching and on a national level viewed as unconstinutional. In this instance, the state has taken the position of forcing a woman to get a medical procedure that is not necessary in addition to the cost associated with it. In addition, this measure has financial implications that would affect every woman seeking to pursue a procedure that is both deeply personal and is legal as per federal law. The ethical dynamics associated here are this, does the state have the right to force a citizen to recieve a medical procedure that is neither necessary, or benificial to anyone involved? The states position is that once an ultrasound is preformed that a woman would refuse said abortion due to emotional impact of the results. This manipulation of the legal system into a citizens life is a direct challenge to an individuals right to their own body. If the state is entitled to force this procedure, do they have other rights to ones body? What is the states obligation to the health and well-being of it's citizens? In this country the right of a woman to have an abortion has been established as legally acceptable for over 30 years now, this law doesn't seek to make it illigal, but rather undesireable and tramatic to the woman considering it. My position is that while the state can and should mandate behaviour such as fireardms, tobacco, alchohol and other substances that can be abused and influence others, it is not, in my opinion the right of the state to limit, or enforce any citizen to recieve a medical treatment that doesn't benifit their health.
Atricle title: Ultrasound Bill Passes Va. Senate: by Anita Kumar Washington Post
No comments:
Post a Comment