Currently, there are 27 states that have passed Women’s Right to Know legislation wherein pregnant mothers are given at least a 24-hour waiting period to review information regarding the risks of abortion, fetal development, and other pertinent information prior to an abortion being performed. Informed consent policies, as these laws are also known by, regarding abortion are becoming more prevalent as many people certainly see the need to inform the woman who is about to undergo the abortion procedure about the risks she will be facing and information regarding the development of her unborn child. Over the years, many states have also amended their informed consent statutes by mandating that, in addition to the above mentioned information, she must also undergo a sonogram so that the pregnant mother is informed of the reality of her unborn child. Recently, a few states have even begun to expand the boundaries of these laws with model legislation from Americans United for Life. Known as the Abortion Pill Reversal Information Act, this legislation would require abortionists to inform women of the ability to reverse the effects of abortion-inducing drugs such as Mifeprex.
But a question for the pro-life layman may arise—what is the purpose of such informed consent statutes? The reality remains that informed consent legislative initiatives are important because they rely on informing the conscience. And conscience plays a very important role in moral decision making as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed” (no. 1778). Informing the conscience helps shape the moral development of the person and on critical issues such as the dignity of life, it is imperative that the conscience be informed properly.
From a Catholic perspective, it is obvious that one who is trying to obtain an abortion is suffering from what is properly called an erroneous conscience since abortion is unreasonable by its very nature—that is, killing of innocent life. All human life is made in the Imago Dei and, as a result, has immeasurable dignity and worth. As the Catechism states, “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end…no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right to directly destroy an innocent human being” (no. 2258). Women’s Right to Know Acts, Sonogram laws, and the Abortion Pill Reversal Information Act are all efforts to help correct the erroneous conscience and are designed to help pregnant mothers see the reality of God’s new creation before the abortion procedure begins. Factual information that conforms and adheres to the truth can properly enlighten the conscience when it comes to making a decision, especially when it comes to the terrible tragedy of abortion. But what makes the Abortion Pill Reversal Information Act even more fascinating than other informed consent laws regarding abortion is that even if the mother has taken the abortion inducing drug, her conscience can still properly judge her act as immoral and she can still have the chance to save her unborn child’s life because of the information she has received. The model bill, if enacted, would require the appropriate state department to produce materials that would state the following,
“Information on the potential ability of qualified medical professionals to reverse the effects of an abortion obtained through the use of abortion-inducing drugs, such as mifepristone (brand name Mifeprex), commonly referred to as “RU-486,” including information directing women to obtain further information at http://www.abortionpillreversal.com/ and by contacting (877) 558-0333 for assistance in locating a medical professional that can aide in the reversal of an abortion.”
As psychological evidence has indicated throughout the years, many women come to regret their abortions. Again, this regret is the conscience indicating to the woman that the moral quality of the act of abortion is inherently immoral. The Abortion Pill Reversal Information Act provides the mother with the needed information she needs if she comes to regret the abortion while the actual abortion inducing drugs are within her body. This, in turn, can have the effect of her acting quickly to take the initiative to save the life of her unborn child.
While these facts alone may convince many to the inherent goodness of the bill, one needs to also look how this type of legislation will also lead to a Culture of Life. As expressed in several articles, one needs to look at the Principle of Incrementalism as espoused by St. John Paul II in order to properly come to the conclusion that this model legislation is indeed truly pro-life. Firstly, does it limit an already existing evil law? The obvious is yes. When Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were decided they virtually wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion. Over the decades, through various state legislative enactments and other US Supreme Court rulings, informed consent statutes have been able to overcome the evil of not informing women. What the Abortion Pill Reversal Information Act will do is now inform women of the potential to reverse the horrendous effects of abortion inducing drugs such as mifepristone. Many states do not have this law and as a result, many women are not being fully informed. This is a clear violation of justice insofar as that a woman is not able properly inform her conscience, especially in the case that she comes to regret her abortion while the drugs are taking effect. This bill seeks to correct that defect within the law.
Secondly, will it lessen the negative consequences of the evil law at the level of general public opinion and public morality? Again, the answer is yes. Law, as the great teacher, will have this effect as St. Thomas states,
Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is “that which makes its subject good,” it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government.
This type of law is directed to the proper formation of conscience when it comes to the subject of abortion. While in secular terms, proponents of such measures are likely to describe how informed consent laws in general show the humanity of the unborn child, however informed consent laws go much deeper than this by showing that the unborn child is created in the Imago Dei. By looking at the information, it is hoped that the mother will recognize the miracle that is growing within her and reject abortion. With the Abortion Pill Reversal Information Act, the law is intended to not only inform the mother of the ability to reverse a drug induced abortion, but in the event that the mother continues with the abortion that she will finally realize the severe moral depravity of abortion and will seek to correct her erroneous actions with the good of saving her unborn child.
But a much broader question ought to be asked—how does this initiative help advance the Culture of Life? As stated above, it is hoped that the pregnant mother will realize that the child developing within her is indeed human made in the image of God. But furthermore, these types of laws help solidify the notion that abortion is not a moral good. In general, informed consent laws inform the public that abortion is not nearly as safe as abortion proponents make it out to be. But furthermore, by providing information about the help a mother can receive before and after birth, the state is advocating on behalf of life. Or to put it simply, life is preferable than the direct and intentional destruction of life. The Abortion Pill Reversal Information Act continues in this vein. When enacted, it is essentially stating that life is preferable and is worth saving.
Legislation such as this is badly needed in the vast majority of states. While the medical technology is available to help save the lives of the unborn who are at risk of being killed by abortion inducing drugs the knowledge of this technology is largely unknown amongst the general populace. Pro-life legislators should seriously consider initiating bills that help properly inform the consciences of abortion minded women. Properly formed consciences are essential in helping build a Culture of Life and the Abortion Pill Reversal Information Act is one step in that direction.
Joe Kral has been involved in the pro-life movement since he has been in college. His MA in Theology was completed at the University of St. Thomas where he specialized in bioethics. From 1996-2003 he was the Legislative Director for Texas Right to Life. During that time he was also a lobbyist for the Department of Medical Ethics at National Right to Life. From 2004-2007 he consulted the Texas Catholic Conference on pro-life legislative initiatives. In 2006 he was awarded the “Bishop’s Pro-Life Award for Civic Action” from the Respect Life Ministry in the Diocese of Dallas. He currently serves as a voluntary legislative advisor to Texas Alliance for Life, is a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, taught as an adjunct professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas, teaches as a Forward Toward Christian Ministry instructor for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, is a member of the Knights of Columbus, and is doing doctoral studies at Harrison Middleton University where he is specializing in the ethical and legal theory of St. Thomas Aquinas. He has been married to his wife, Melissa, since 2004 and they have 2 children together. They attend St. Theresa’s Catholic Church in Sugar Land.
- Regnative Prudence and Pro-Life Legislation Part 2: The Dismemberment Abortion Ban
- Regnative Prudence and Pro-Life Legislation Part 1: The Heartbeat Bill and Abortion Bans
- The Moral Case for States to Pass Partial Birth Abortion Bans
- Blessed Margaret of Castello: Patron for Legislation Protecting the Disabled Unborn
- The Moral Case to Eliminate Wrongful Birth Suits
