Members of a House judiciary subcommittee heard emotional testimony Wednesday on a bill to provide more information to women considering an abortion prior to the procedure.
The committee put off a vote on the measure until next week, but that didn’t stop advocates from both sides of the abortion debate from voicing their opinions. A physician who performs abortions called the informed-consent bill “bad from start to finish,” while a woman told lawmakers about regrets that still haunt her over her decision to abort.
“Little did I know, when I chose to have an abortion, I traded convenience for torture, love for pain, joy for shame, and I found a weight of guilt that slowly corrodes your soul,” said Danelle Hallenbeck, who obtained an abortion from Planned Parenthood in 1993.
Afterward, Hallenbeck said she became involved in the pro-life movement and had more than 2,000 sworn affidavits from women who say they were hurt by abortion.
On the other side, University of North Carolina physician David Grimes claimed the bill intrudes into the private lives of women and their doctors. Grimes, who has provided abortions for 38 years, also argued that bringing a pregnancy to term is more risky than having an abortion.
“We’ve known for 30 years from [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data that having an abortion is vastly safer than having a baby,” he said.
If passed by the General Assembly, House Bill 854, Abortion-Woman’s Right to Know Act, would mirror laws in dozens of other states that require a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion, an ultrasound image of the unborn child, and notarized parental consent for a minor’s abortion.
The bill is sure to further stoke partisan emotions among House members already weary from a budget debate that included a skirmish over taxpayer-funded abortion.
Sponsors say a substitute version of the bill to make minor tweaks to the language will be introduced next week.
David N. Bass is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.