The United States has seen a backwards slide of a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body. Many states have adopted waiting periods before a woman can legally get an abortion. Many are pushing the boundaries of how far back from conception they will allow a woman is allowed to get an abortion. And an alarming number now have requirements that a woman undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound in an attempt to shame the woman who has made the agonizing decision. However, Iowa is the first where the Governor becomes involved in that decision.
Why would Iowa take such a far reaching and intrusive step? According to the pro-choice organization NARAL, Iowa already has in place significant restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. This includes:
- a ban on abortions, some as early as 12 weeks after conception
- a right to refuse to provide women’s health services, information or referrals by private providers
- limited access for low income women except for cases of rape, incest, non-viability or severe deformity of the fetus, and to save the life of the mother, and
- parental notification for young women under the age of 18
While the restrictions aren’t a lot different than many other states, there is one fact that makes this new restriction somewhat pointless. Iowa’s abortion rate is almost half of the national average. Since 1991, the state’s abortion rate has remained relatively steady. The fact is, even while more restrictions were added, the rate of abortions did not go down. In fact, it’s actually risen some.
So what precise restriction is the state trying to institute that involves the governor’s approval? Under the new law the governor’s approval will be required for every reimbursement for Medicaid services that include abortion services. While it doesn’t restrict the service itself for low income women, it will certainly intimidate providers into carefully deciding who would get access in the first place, or the provider will have to eat the costs, knowing the governor may reject the claim. The likely assumption is that this will reduce the number of abortions because low income women are more likely to have an abortion. The national average shows that 69% of abortions are by women who are economically disadvantaged.
The fact is, this paternalistic law won’t reduce the number of abortions. Restricting access alone does not reduce the number of abortions. One of the main reasons is that middle and higher income women have better access to birth control. This makes sense when you realize that when there was an economic downturn, more people may have lost their access to birth control. They were forced onto Medicaid, and when they got pregnant (for whatever reason), some chose abortion. The result is an uptick in abortions.
This still leaves an unresolved question. Why would the governor of Iowa be the decision maker on this matter? There doesn’t seem to be any logical answer, but it certainly does show how low they are willing to go to shame low income women. They need to get their heads out of our vaginas and uteri.
Edited and published by CB
