An Iowa House subcommittee approved a bill Wednesday that would require women in Iowa to receive an ultrasound prior to receiving an abortion — a divisive proposal that Planned Parenthood of the Heartland calls an attempt to shame women.
The bill, House File 58, will now advance to the House Human Resources Committee, where it will have until the legislative deadline of Friday, March 6 to advance. Should the bill advance, it would likely face a tough fight from both Iowa Democrats — who currently control the Senate — as well as moderate Republicans.
Currently, three states require medical providers to perform an ultrasound prior to an abortion, in addition to showing and describing the image to the patient.
The proposed bill in the Iowa House is slightly different, in that it would require an ultrasound, but not require doctors to show or describe the image. Iowa doctors would, however, be required to give women the “opportunity” to view the images, hear a description, and/or listen to the fetus’s heartbeat.
If passed, Iowa would be the 11th state to adopt such a bill.
Under the proposed bill, Iowa doctors who do not comply would face a fine and jail time.
Chuck Hurley, a proponent of the bill and lobbyist for the Family Leadership Organization, told the Quad City Times that he supports the bill because, “There is something important and profound that happens when a parent sees their child on an ultrasound.”
The reaction on behalf of the bill’s opponents, however, has been strong. Iowa Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell (D-Ames) called the bill demeaning, before adding, “This is not where the Legislature should be. This is moving us backward to believing that women don’t understand what happens when they become pregnant,” the Quad City Times reports.
Erin Davison-Rippey, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, says that mandating medical practice into Iowa law is unnecessary, as the current standard of care already calls for an ultrasound.
“The tenor of this bill is sending the message that we don’t trust women and we don’t trust doctors,” Davison-Rippey said.
“We believe that the intent behind this is to shame women into making a different decision,” Davison-Rippey added. “We trust that [this] decision is best made between a women and her doctor, and the legislature has no business being a part of that.”
The full text of the bill, and a summary of its fifteen sponsors, is available online.
