| June 17, 2005 Alaska Abortion Website Reviewed by David Dunsmore, insurgent49 In 2004, the Alaska legislature passed SB 30 mandating the creation of a website that would be required reading for women seeking abortions. One year and $20,000 later the site is almost ready to launch (actually it is already online, but it has yet to be formally approved by Lieutenant Governor Loren Leman). Abortion is obviously a hot button political issue, and media coverage has focused mostly on whether the site would be biased. No one bothered to ask whether the site was any good. When the Legislature mandated the site, they insisted it was to make sure that doctors provided patients with sufficient information about abortion, but the finished product is not exactly a treasure trove of information. The site’s raison d'etre, the page about abortion methods and risks, is surprisingly sparse, providing only the most basic description of the various procedures and potential side affects. The section about possible emotional side effects is particularly vapid. In this section you learn that “[w]omen who say they feel comfortable with their decision before the procedure are less likely to report regret later.” I doubt most people need a website to tell them that they are less likely to regret the decisions they are most comfortable making. Whether a pregnancy ends in childbirth, miscarriage, or abortion, there are certainly many possible emotional and psychological complications, and it is wise for a woman to evaluate the emotional and psychological effects of her choice. Unfortunately, the section’s two paragraphs full of truisms and ambiguities add no substance and are not likely to provide any satisfactory answers. There is nothing wrong with the pages on childbirth and fetal development, but they do not provide any information that cannot readily be found by a simple Google search. The fetal development page provides the same outline of fetal growth, telling how big the fetus will be at various intervals, and when it will start developing various organs, that can be found on posters in doctors’ offices everywhere. The section on pregnancy provides short description of various possible complications and admonitions not to drink, smoke, or use cocaine while pregnant. After all, its says, “The effects of cocaine exposure are entirely preventable.” The section on childbirth’s emotional and psychological aspects is significantly better than its abortion counterpart, because it does mention the psychological disorder postpartum depression, where the abortion page contains only vague references to feeling like “emptiness and guilt or sadness as well as relief.” The childbirth page ends with a brief description of why and how to establish paternity. The adoption page briefly describes the adoption process, and refers the reader to outside links for details. The family planning and birth control page contains short descriptions of various birth control methods and possible side effects, but again it provides only the most bare bones information which is already readily available online. The discussion of abstinence, which ranges from the cliché (“Not having sex at all is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy”) to the condescending (“At any point in your life you may decide not to have sex”), is the lowlight of the whole site. Another problem with the birth control page is its inconsistent use of colloquial language. In its discussion of progestin-only contraceptives, the site refers to them frequently as “the shot” or “mini-pills,” but in its discussion of emergency contraception the site never once mentions the phrase “morning after pill,” the most commonly used term for emergency contraception. Writing by committee is always a daunting task, and writing a website about abortion, pregnancy, and childbirth that all sides accept as unbiased is near impossible. This critique is not meant to disparage the doctors who volunteered their time to create the site, but rather to point out the inherent foolishness in mandating such a site in the first place. The information contained in the website was already available online, and there was no indication that doctors were not already providing their patients with this information. When nearly one fourth of the states population cannot afford health insurance, spending $20,000 dollars to create a website that rehashes existing information seems particularly wasteful. David Dunsmore ran for mayor of Anchorage in 2003 and currently serves on the Anchorage Health and Human Services Commission. He can be reached at davidkdunsmore@aol.com. |
-
Columnists -
- related items -
http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/wcfh/ informedconsent/resources.htm preliminary Alaska abortion website - also by this writer - Anchorage Campaign Financing Uncovered Ben Stevens Wants Your PFD |
||||||
| Copyright
2005
Insurgent Media. All Rights
Reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
|||||||
