Conservatives are making another push to rid us of a woman’s choice to get an abortion.

Recently, Republican representatives in the House tried to pass a bill in committee to redefine rape so that only some forms of it would be classified as “forcible.” Their redefinition would have taken away federally-funded abortions from those who had not been violently raped, such as victims of date rape and statutory rape. Due to public outrage, this attempt to limit access to abortions was thwarted.

However, last week in the Texas Senate, a bill passed that once again limits women’s rights. Authored by Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, the bill requires women to have a sonogram, listen to the heartbeat and hear a doctor describe in simple terms what is on the sonogram.

Of course, the woman has to pick up the tab for this doctor’s visit. Patrick claims this bill empowers women by giving them all the information needed to make their decision of whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

Yet the bill does not seem to be giving women options, but taking them away. Patrick says women can choose to tune out the doctor. But think about it – the woman has a doctor on her left and a monitor showing the sonogram on the right. The sound is on. What are her options to “tune out” the doctor? Should she close her eyes, put her fingers in her ears and shout “la la la la?” That hardly sound like an empowering choice. It sounds more like an attempt to guilt women into not having an abortion.

This doctor visit does not dispense more information, either. The information needed by a woman in this situation is the risks and side effects of an abortion, adoption options and counseling to help her through the trauma.

Deciding to have an abortion is not a minor decision like deciding what to eat. For most women, it is a long, well thought out decision.

Supporters of this bill claim that most women do not know what a sonogram is and that that is why it is an empowering bill. When was the last time these supporters watched television or a movie? Having a child is a popular plot line, and sonograms help the audience believe the actress is pregnant.

Women are not ignorant, nor do they need help making their own decisions. Lawmakers should give each woman more information to make the right choice for her and her situation. But this isn’t the right way to do so. Forcing guilt upon her will only produce additional psychological harm and negative consequences for the child born into a situation where it was not wanted.

Furthermore, what information does seeing a sonogram and having the physical body of the child described give to the woman? According to the American Medical Association, doctors should give their patients, on an individual level, information that is of “medical interest.” Various doctors have come forward to dispute the claim that this legislation provides women with necessary information. It is of medical interest to disclose birth defects or abnormalities, but describing a perfectly healthy child on a sonogram is not of any particular medical interest to a pregnant woman.

Curiously, women who are exempt from this legislation are those whose fetuses are showing signs of birth defects, as well as in cases of rape and incest. It is understandable to not force a woman who has experienced rape or incest to see the product of that violation.

To exclude women who may give birth to a child with birth defects, though, does not make sense. If this legislation really wants to empower women and give them necessary information, then why exclude those who need it the most?

Of course, nothing should bar a woman from requesting a sonogram, but it should not be required. The intention of this legislation is to make a woman too guilty to have an abortion. It pushes a specific political agenda that is religiously motivated.

If legislators really wanted to give women options, they would support funding sonograms to make them affordable. They would provide counselors or support legislation making adoption in this country less of a marathon and more of a reasonable option.

Even if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions in this state, there are effective ways to reach that goal without taking away women’s rights.