Summary
This legislation would require physicians to provide women considering abortion with information concerning the risks of abortion, alternatives to the procedure and the gestational age and development of their unborn child. It would then give women sufficient time to reflect on the decision, weigh their options and give voluntary, knowledgeable and informed consent to the procedure. Because the so-called “morning-after pill,” or “emergency contraception,” is now widely available, informed consent should also be required for women considering its use.

Conference Position
The Catholic Conference supports enactment of this legislation.

Rationale
This legislation is solidly pro-women. Its goal is to provide women with all the information they need to make a truly informed choice, and to protect them from risks and dangers of which they may have previously been unaware.

Statutes requiring informed consent outside of the abortion context are commonplace. In New York State, for example, laws are currently on the books requiring informed consent for the various methods of treating breast cancer (Public Health Law Section 2404) and hysterectomy procedures (Public Health Law Section 2495.)

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania’s informed consent law for abortion; New York’s legislation is based on this constitutional model. Thirty-two states now require specific informed consent counseling prior to abortion, and most include a specific waiting period between the counseling and the abortion.

A 1991 case in Schenectady reveals the need for this legislation. A doctor claimed to have performed an abortion on a woman at a Planned Parenthood clinic after the patient indicated she was about two months pregnant. Five days later the woman gave birth to a boy estimated to be 27 weeks old. The physician indicated that such gross misdiagnosis can occur because many abortion clinics have a “same-day” policy, i.e. a one-day walk-in patient who is not given the benefit of counseling, not reviewed for medical history, and not offered informed consent.

In the 2004 federal district court trials involving the partial-birth abortion ban, strong evidence was offered showing that abortionists do not always provide full information to women considering abortion. Judge Richard Conway Casey, in his August 26 decision for the US District Court, southern district of New York, cites as a finding of fact that some doctors “do not convey to their patients that their fetuses may undergo severe pain” during a partial-birth abortion.

A nationwide January 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found 78 percent support for a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion and 88 percent support for requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives to abortion before performing the procedure.