Too Much Information

In Oklahoma on Tuesday, the state legislature voted to override the governor's veto of two abortion bills. Among other things, one of the new laws will require doctors to perform an ultrasound and require the patient be provided with a description of the fetus and the procedure that will be used to remove it. The governor evidently believes the measure provides too much information for the patient to have to listen to. The governor's action seems to be based on the assumption that the more information the patient has about an abortion, the more difficult will be the decision to get one. Abortion rights groups are already moving to challenge the law: a curious move.

The reason this is curious is that it is a general assumption that the more information a patient has concerning a medical procedure, the better that patient will be able to decide whether to undergo it. Typically, a patient about to undergo a medical procedure is given a detailed description of the procedure that will be used and what it is hoped will be result. If, for example, a tumor was to be removed or a knee repaired, the doctor would describe the nature of the procedure and explain how he was going to go about it. Where x-rays are useful in explaining the problem, they are shown to the patient. Very few patients would refuse to look at x-rays or decline information offered by a doctor as to what is going to be done to them and what is hoped to be achieved by it. Indeed, many doctors would be considered negligent if they failed to provide information and options to the patient. The patient might decline to listen to the doctor or refuse to look at x-rays, but the information is provided.

Yet in Oklahoma, the governor decided that providing information about the procedure of getting an abortion and what would be involved would be too much for a patient to have to listen to. Some seem to think that if women are informed in any detail regarding the procedure of abortion they might be disinclined to get one. Even if this is true, why this should upset pro choice advocates is a mystery. The Oklahoma law will do nothing to undermine the stated goals of abortion advocates to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare. Abortion will not be made any less legal or safe by the law. It might make it more rare. Unless abortion advocates believe that ignorance, willful or otherwise, is necessary if abortion is to survive, their opposition to the measure is unjustified. If the proponents of choice believe that information works to their disadvantage, they should reassess the merits of their beliefs. It is a rare case indeed when information is seen as an obstacle to be avoided.