A New Attack on Women’s Freedom

Nicole Lynch, JD 2008

The pro-life movement has found a new strategy for attacking women’s freedom. In Michigan, pro-life advocates and right-wing legislators have passed a new type of anti-choice legislation termed the Coercive Abortion Bills. Other states are also considering such legislation. These statutes, designed to curtail coerced abortions, ultimately put the women they are meant to protect into more danger. These statutes also have the desired impact of targeting abortion providers, many of women are accused of “coercing” women into having abortions.

The recently passed set of Coercive Abortion Bills in Michigan makes it a crime to coerce, force, or otherwise compel a woman to get an abortion. Physicians are required to perform a “Coercion and Intimidation Screening” including, in the consent form, that the woman understands that it is illegal for anyone to coerce or intimidate her to seek an abortion. If a patient indicates that she is the victim of intimidation, the physician must postpone the abortion procedure for at least 24 hours. This is in addition to the 24-hour waiting period already required by the state of Michigan. The screening process also provides the patient with information on contracting local law enforcement, and domestic violence shelters and other support organizations available to her, and notifies her that intimidation is grounds for a civil action. The bills provide for that civil action, and further establish criminal penalties for coercing, intimidating, or compelling a woman to seek an abortion.

While on the surface these bills seem benign, they may cause more harm than good. For example, if a woman seeks an abortion, and is battered, and the batterer does not know or would not approve of the abortion, waiting period requirements could put her in further danger. By forcing a woman to travel to the clinic twice, waiting periods can create a greater threat to a woman whose travel is limited by her abuser. Furthermore, these bills are not written clearly or concisely. This creates loopholes that could allow the prosecution of abortion providers for allegedly coercing women into having abortions. The vague language “compelling” could be used against a provider if they, at any time, give advice to the woman seeking an abortion. For example, if a woman got an abortion against the wishes of her abuser, she could claim that the physician compelled or coerced her into it, thus protecting her from retaliation by her abuser.

Coercion is legally defined as a compulsion by physical force or threat of physical force. However, the lay definition is simply when one is compelled to an act or choice. This term is not officially defined in the Michigan bills. Coercion in a relationship is complex and a simple set of laws making it illegal are not going to change those complexities. Even if a boyfriend, husband, or someone else coerced a woman into having an abortion, she likely would not go through the necessary steps to hold him accountable. A coerced woman would need to 1) tell the physician during the screening process, 2) contact law enforcement and file charges, and 3) go to court and possibly sue her partner. Most women in an abusive relationship would not go through these necessary steps because it would be putting herself in greater danger. The reality is that any woman in an abusive relationship, or who would get an abortion because someone threatened or coerced her, would likely still get the abortion. Furthermore, according to Michigan’s National Organization for Women, sometimes if a battered woman feels coerced into having an abortion it is because child custody laws do not adequately protect battered women and their children, or because current social policies do not allow battered women to feel they have the resources necessary to provide for their children, such as employment.

Pro-life groups claim that many women feel forced by others to have abortions, and that these bills are designed to prevent coercion from escalating into physical violence or even murder (the leading cause of death among pregnant women). However, one must understand the dynamics of an abusive relationship before creating laws designed to protect those in such relationships. It is very unfortunate that many women feel forced into abortions, however, the reality of these relationships coupled with these laws is that women may be in more danger. Abusers tend to escalate their level of violence when they feel they are losing control. If an abuser discovers that his partner might go to the police, or a shelter, he is likely to increase his violence against her to retain control. Often, even once law enforcement has been contacted for a restraining order or other protective measure, they are helpless to protect the women from retaliation by her abuser.

In reality, these laws are an attempt by pro-life advocates to further limit access to abortion. They are supported by “pro-life” groups. Some of those that testified or indicated support for the Michigan bills are: Michigan Catholic Conference, Right to Life Michigan, and Anchor of Hope, to name a few. They are not supported by pro-choice groups or domestic violence advocacy groups. Some of the organizations that testified against or indicated opposition to the bills in Michigan include Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/Michigan Section, Michigan NOW, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan, and others.

These laws are aimed at changing a woman’s mind and alternatively “coercing” her into keeping a baby she may not actually want. The waiting periods make her access to an abortion more difficult especially if she is in an abusive relationship. Moreover, the laws themselves are not written clearly or concisely enough to protect abortion providers from prosecution. Moreover, the pro-life advocates that spearheaded these bills refused to include that coercing a woman into keeping a baby was also illegal. If the real goal were to protect women, this additional protection would have been included.

While it is admirable that legislators and organizations want to protect domestic violence victims, these laws merely treat a symptom of the larger problem. These laws would be more comprehensive, and fairer, if they outlawed any type of coercion of reproductive choice – be it a coerced abortion, coerced pregnancy or coerced sterilization, including coercion to continue a pregnancy against ones desires. However, such laws would still inhibit choice and personal autonomy, and laws that create such limitations are ultimately harmful despite possible protective intentions. Far better, is to provide information about domestic violence without the requirement for penalties or waiting periods. In this way, women can protect themselves without being forced to turn in the perpetrator. If a woman is being coerced, she can tell her physician, obtain help from women’s shelters, and involve law enforcement on her own. She does not need a new set of overly restrictive laws, designed with ulterior motives, to protect her, especially when the laws will likely put her at greater risk.