Privacy vs. the Right to Know
The Denver Post
July 23, 2000

Believe it or not, here we go again. The forces that want to restrict a woman's right to abortion are at it once more. They've brought back their so-called "woman's right to know" initiative for this November's ballot.

The assumptions are just like last time. A woman doesn't have the sense to make her own critical choices in life. A woman has to be forced by government to consider her alternatives when she has an important decision to make. A woman just can't collect the pertinent information she needs to make her difficult decisions-instead, the state must mandate what information she gets and how she gets it. A woman couldn't possibly know enough to make an informed choice about having an abortion unless she is force-fed information abortion opponents, not the woman herself, want her to know.

Why, then, doesn't state law specify the information you must receive if you're going to carry a fetus to term? Why doesn't this same group (that wants so desperately to limit a woman's right to make her own choices) specify what information a pregnant woman should get about giving birth and raising children before she has her baby? After all, raising children is full of tough choices, complicated decisions, psychological highs and lows and financial responsibilities. It's a life-long commitment for which so many young parents are unprepared.

But, no, this group doesn't want the state to have any involvement in the choice to have a baby. Just a deep, intrusive involvement in the choice to terminate a pregnancy.

It's pretty clear from reading this initiative that one goal is to make providing abortion services so time-consuming and onerous that many providers just give up. A doctor-not a nurse or a midwife or another health care professional of a woman's choosing--will have to sit down with a woman seeking an abortion, at least 24 hours before the procedure, and go over a long list of specifics about abortion and alternatives to abortion. These include photographs of a fetus at every 2 weeks of gestation. Not following these detailed instructions will subject a doctor to severe criminal penalties.

Giving information about a procedure is, of course, usual practice between doctors and their patients. But, do we really want government to dictate, in law, what our doctors must tell us about prostate cancer options or an appendectomy or a vasectomy? We cherish our personal privacy on medical issues and do not want government interfering with that privacy. Virtually all of us are capable of asking our own questions to get the information we need to make informed decisions. What an invasion of our personal privacy for the state to legislate what a doctor must tell us about our medical choices!

While the initiative sponsors claim that they only want women to get "unbiased" information about abortion, the language clearly supports their political agenda, not the woman's best interests. For example, a woman would have to read the following statement: "There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you to carry your child to term, and to assist you and your child after your child is born, . . . . The State of Colorado strongly urges you to contact one or more of these agencies before making a final decision about abortion." Really now, what business is it of the State of Colorado to urge any one of us, through state law, to seek a particular form of help for our medical or other personal decisions?

The "woman's right to know" initiative has nothing to do with a woman's right to know anything. It is a blatant attempt to insert state government into a very difficult, very personal and very private decision. Neither state government nor a special interest group has any business dictating what information a woman must receive before making a decision about abortion. If this initiative becomes law, what invasion of our privacy will they dream up next?

Here's our chance to keep state government out of our personal lives and private decisions. This initiative is a turkey. Just vote no.