Abortion restriction bill: ineffective and unnecessary

Xavier Conzet (‘19)

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

On April 5 the Iowa House cast the final vote on a bill regarding abortion restrictions and sent it back to the Senate to approve any additional stipulations they added.  This is not a new political trend and makes Iowa the 18th state to enact such a law. Before any arguments for or against this bill can be made, one must first know what that law entails.

This law, titled Senate File 471, would ban abortions after twenty weeks of pregnancy as well as requiring a three-day waiting period and an ultrasound before it can take place. That is all it does; it essentially does nothing and the republicans in state congress are acting like they did something huge.

Here is why it is a lame excuse for a restriction.  About 1.3% of abortions are at or after twenty weeks. Of that 1.3%, most would be exempt due to either fetal abnormalities or a threat to the mother’s health.  How can that be a big win?  Not only is the bill not actually a big win, it adds things that are completely unnecessary. The fact that they added an ultrasound requirement just shows even further that this bill isn’t actually about reducing abortion and is actually about “political points.” 

In studies of over three hundred abortion patients, both the University of British Columbia and the University of Texas Austin found that getting an ultrasound did not change a single mind.  If the republicans in the Iowa congress actually cared about the issue rather than just wanting political points then I have some advice for them: pass a law that would actually affect the number of abortions happening and don’t add stipulations that do nothing other than make Iowa residents pay for things that don’t work.


Xavier Conzet (‘19)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email