The Kentucky Senate passed an informed consent bill that will require a meeting between the pregnant woman and the abortionist at least 24-hours before an abortion takes place. The bill, SB 3, passed the pro-life chamber by an overwhelming majority of 30-5.
Currently in Kentucky, an abortionist, licensed nurse, abortionist’s assistant or a social worker must verbally inform the woman of the medical risks and abortion alternatives at least 24-hours before an abortion; however, it does not specify that the information be given in a face-to face meeting. In the past, the information has even been relayed via telephone call.
According to River City News, the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Julie Raque Adams (R-Louisville), said, “The importance of a face-to-face medical consultation prior to consenting to a surgical procedure is a widely accepted medical standard of care – and Kentucky woman deserve no less.”
Sen. Mike Wilson (R-Bowling Green) also added that abortion-related measures always prompt a lot of discussion about women’s rights but not about a baby’s rights. He said, “Somebody has to be the voice of those children. Life begins at conception.”
In the United States, 27 states have informed consent laws in place; but unfortunately, most abortion advocates stand against the common-sense legislation. This is because they claim that it causes “undue burden” for women seeking abortion. However, as LifeNews previously reported, “Informed Consent” is standard operating procedure for physicians and patients considering a medical treatment, procedure, surgery or drugs.
Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed its approval of informed consent laws and they’ve repeatedly been upheld as constitutional, withstanding multiple legal challenges. In both Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 and Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007, the Supreme Court affirmed “the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman.” This includes an “interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well-informed.” The Court also stated, “[a]s with any medical procedure, the State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion.”
Sen. Ralph Alvarado, R-Winchester, said he was compelled to publicly explain his vote since he was the only medical doctor currently serving as a Senator. He said informed consent is basically an ethics doctrine.
“I don’t see how anyone could possibly want to restrict this from an individual,” he said. “Informed consent should be looked on as a process rather than a signature.”
Sen. Dan Seum, R-Fairdale, voted for the bill but complained legislators “never include daddies’ rights” in abortion-related measures. Sen. Denise Harper Angel, D-Louisville, explained why she voted against the bill.
“This bill is just another annual assault on women’s right to make a personal decision,” she said. “It is demeaning to all women and particularly burdensome on working women and women in rural areas. Politics don’t belong in the exam room.”
Sen. Reginald Thomas, D-Lexington, was also against the bill. “I don’t know why it is we have to impose upon these women a guilt trip … ,” he said.
The measure now goes to the House for consideration.