Doonesbury Enters the Doctor's Office

Decisional autonomy must limit the State's power to inject into a woman's most personal deliberations its own views of what is best. The State may promote its preferences by funding childbirth, by creating and maintaining alternatives to abortion, and by espousing the virtues of family; but it must respect the individual's freedom to make such judgments.

-- Justice Stevens

Doonesbury this week has a series with bite about a state that does not trust a woman and her doctor regarding such questions, selectively at that.  I talked about ultrasound laws here and here and it's useful to remember that a majority of the laws in place do not force women to have an ultrasound. They truly further autonomy in various ways, such as requiring ultrasounds to be an option (putting aside if this cost is medically necessary in certain cases) or to allow the woman to see information if one is done.   Even Texas makes certain exceptions:

A woman would still be subject to the sonogram but would not be required to hear an explanation of the sonogram images if she certifies in writing that her fetus has an irreversible medical condition as identified by a reliable diagnostic procedure and documented in her medical file.” Based on this reply, it seems that the torturous description I'd borne was just a clerical mistake.

Minors and rape victims also are made exceptions.  It is useful to know just what might be at stake here with a "transvaginal" ultrasound as compared to what many think of in this situation:

Note that, contra the rhetoric of the governor of Virginia, this is not just about the "right to know," but the insistence that you get it and listen even if you don't want to do so. In fact, there is some effort to keep you from knowing everything, including the obligation of doctors to provide certain information that might lead a few to abort troubled pregnancies. Again, where are the "they are commandeering us into buying insurance" (they are not) crowd here?  Anyway, doing a search for the transvaginal probe led to this more explicit image:

I'm sorry for something that looks pornographic, but that is a sample image provided for training purposes. [See also a link here; really, the visual is like a modern day clothes hanger.]  Justice Kennedy noted in the D&X abortion case that: "Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety preceding invasive medical procedures become the more intense." They also rather not have certain procedures when they are not medically necessary. This includes, selective religious freedom alert, not having the state force its morals into the privacy of your doctor's office and require medical procedures to so further.

The right of privacy has no more conspicuous place than in the physician-patient relationship, unless it be in the priest-penitent relationship.

Yes, Justice Douglas, but the state is trying to save the woman's soul here, putting aside there is little real evidence that this will do anything.

The "sodomy cases" were so important because they hit to the core of privacy and equality as well as personal moral choices. They were not merely about certain sex acts, but basic rights. The attack on women's reproductive freedom, down to contraceptive choice, is important ultimately for the same reasons though they also have immediate health effects.

Meanwhile, the USSC will soon spend six hours on that great threat to liberty, providing more equitable health care.