skip to Main Content

Defending Sonya’s Law

Recently, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Editorial Board interviewed Senate Leader Chris Larson on several issues, the first being abortion. The issue of contention is over a Republican sponsored bill that would require women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound prior to the procedure. From the onset, it seemed fairly clear the freshman Senator was swinging outside his power zone.

Larson used several arguments to oppose the Republican bill, each of them were flawed to varying degrees. Ironically, the best argument he could of made was entirely neglected.

Larson’s first line of attack focused on Governor Scott Walker’s support for the bill and subsequent pledge to sign it into law. Larson went after the Governor claiming it’s easy to find no problems with mandating ultrasounds when Walker will never be subjected to such a procedure. Relatedly, Larson accused sponsors of the bill for presuming women aren’t intelligent enough to make these decisions on their own. He also reinforced a 2012 election mantra that Republicans were at war with women. Already, there are several problems with Larson’s initial response.

First, using a gender-based argument to oppose a required ultrasound is especially problematic when the head sponsor of the bill is a female legislator. Does Larson believe that women are waging war against themselves? The governor’s gender is immaterial for one important reason — bills should be debated on merits, not on the chromosomes of those signing them into law.

Second, there is a conceptual difference between being intelligent and being informed as a decision maker. Requiring an ultrasound so a mother can see what’s being removed makes no presumptions about her IQ or her capacity to make decisions. The doctor is not arguing with her or persuading her that she’s making a mistake, but giving her a fuller glimpse of what she’s doing.

If the fetus is seen as disposable tissue, then viewing an ultrasound should be no different than a neurosurgeon showing a patient a CAT scan before removing a deteriorated disc. The surgeon is not questioning the patient’s intelligence, but being thorough?

The real fear, for Democrats, is that the mother isn’t fully committed to having an abortion — that she may come to a greater realization that the fetus in her womb is more than just disposable tissue, but something far more meaningful.

Larson makes two other points worth noting. He criticizes the ultrasound mandate since Republicans didn’t debate abortion last year. Larson thinks Republicans are being disingenuous. Again, this is a red herring. Republican motives have nothing to do with the merits of the bill. Furthermore, there is also no unwritten rule that the scope of creating law must be contained to the content of campaign debates. If they were, it would bring a whole new meaning to the role of debate moderators as agents of creating law. If we held legislators to this stringent standard, both parties would be “the party of no.”

Larson’s last argument will likely be a significant talking point for Democrats in the next gubernatorial election. He says Republicans are passing abortion bills instead of focusing on job creation. This point could be an annoying prick in the side of Republicans as the Wisconsin continues to struggle on the job creation front.

Besides being a red herring like the others, it presumes that a legislative body cannot multitask. For instance, Republican Legislator Dale Kooyenga – who is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) – has proposed a sweeping tax reform bill that would arguably spur job creation by lowing income and property taxes. It shouldn’t be surprising that the State Legislature can talk and chew bubblegum at the same time. Passing an abortion bill doesn’t mean nobody is working on job creation.

Most interestingly, Larson passed up on the best argument. Democrats have recently argued that legislators shouldn’t be in the business of practicing medicine, that they should leave medically relevant decisions to professionals in the medical community.

The argument has a certain prima facia appeal, but it’s still flawed. Like everything else, the practice of medicine is governed by law and for good reason. Consider a baby born after a botched abortion who is desperately struggling to live. Representatives of Planned Parenthood have testified before Congress that the fate of the child should remain between the patient and the health care provider. Question: if a baby is born alive, doesn’t the doctor have two patients? Who decides, the doctor or a legislative body? My bet is with the latter.

Aaron Rodriguez

Back To Top