ABORTION COUNSEL

As the 1996 session of the Missouri General Assembly begins its second full month next week, it is clear that two important issues that dominated last year's session will again be front and center this year. Both are controversial measures guaranteed to consume lots of time in floor debate. One is the conceal-carry bill, wherein Missourians would be extended the right guaranteed to citizens of more than 30 other states: The right to apply to law enforcement authorities to earn a permit to carry a concealed weapon. More about that important issue later.

The other contentious issue certain to dominate much of this year's session is also a carryover from last year. It is this year's Senate Bill 741, which is similar to last year's SB 279. It is the abortion caregiver bill. This is a moderate and sensible measure that should commend itself to reasonable Missourians of whatever persuasion on the difficult abortion issue.

Sen. John Schneider, D-St. Louis, has introduced the bill for the second year in a row. Sen. Schneider was joined by a large, bipartisan group of co-sponsors, including Sen. Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau.

The bill provides case manager services to pregnant women with the goal of reducing infant mortality, out-of-wedlock conception, inadequate prenatal care and abortion. To begin with, the bill provides: "Case managers shall inform each client that accepting case manager services is voluntary." Case manager services include: 1) helping women obtain support services. 2) Assisting women in obtaining prenatal care. 3) Promoting adoption. 4) Verifying that these women are fully informed about the consequences of abortion and that their choices are freely made.

The bill proceeds from one important precept on which, surely, Missourians can overwhelmingly agree: The notion that any woman contemplating abortion is at a crisis point in her life. In the main, opponents don't really dispute this precept, based as it is in compassion for lonely women or girls in trouble. Rather, these opponents cavil about this or that provision and scream about "infringements on a woman's right to choose."

In fact, no such infringements are contemplated in a bill that seeks primarily to provide fully informed consent to a woman contemplating an abortion. In truth, that vital notion -- informed consent -- is really the heart of the matter. Abortion is the single most common elective surgical procedure in America. Why shouldn't women in trouble, who are contemplating this irrevocable decision, be fully informed of all the long-term consequences -- physical, psychological, emotional? Why shouldn't they be informed of the overwhelming desire of infertile couples for babies to adopt? Why shouldn't this deadly calculus of abortion be tilted ever so slightly in favor of choosing life?