Recently, the Texas Senate introduced a bill that threatens women's reproductive rights. Senate Bill 25 discusses wrongful births. The legal definition of wrongful birth is a medical malpractice claim brought by the parents of a child born with birth defects, alleging that negligent treatment or advice deprived them of the opportunity to avoid conception or terminate the pregnancy. This bill would prevent parents from suing their doctor if their baby is born with a disability.

The Washington Post states that the bill's opponents say that it would create an incentive for anti-abortion doctors to not conduct a prenatal test, to not fully inform pregnant women, and even lie to patients who might seek an abortion after learning of the fetus' abnormalities. Lawmakers believe this bill will help reduce, or even end, abortions in Texas. Allowing doctors to not inform their patients about their baby's health is wrong because the parents cannot make fully informed decisions if information is withheld from them. What patients do for their health and lives is their business, not anyone else's.

Most parents worry about the health and well being of their kids, and want to make decisions best for them and their family. SB 25 would prevent them from doing so. Some parents may want to abort if their child will have extreme disabilities that will effect the child's quality of life, or that will kill him or her shortly after birth. The parents in this case should be able to make that decision if they don't want their child to suffer. Some parents who want to know about the child's disabilities want to do this because they don't want to abort, but want to plan financially for the child's needs. Depending on the child's need, he or she may require special medical equipment in the home and on the go, regular doctor's visits, regular hospital visits, certain accommodations at school, and other potential items. Parents may or may not be able to afford certain things for their child's need, so they should have this information to make plans. If the parents cannot afford the special medical needs, but want to keep the baby, they need this information so they can take measures to ensure they have resources to cover the needs. This can be in the form of borrowing money from family, getting on public assistance/welfare, or even getting a second, third, or better paying job in general. This bill actually hurts those who might want to keep their baby, despite his or her disabilities.

The National Women's Law Center explains that the Supreme Court made the landmark decision of Roe vs. Wade in 1973, which applied the constitutional right of privacy to a woman's ability to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy. This right for women is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that it is fundamental, meaning that governmental attempts to interfere with the right are subject to strict scrutiny. For government to withstand this scrutiny, it must show that its law or policy is necessary to achieve a compelling interest. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest and must be the least restrictive means for doing so. Although SB 25 isn't a specific ban on abortion, it does interfere with a woman's right to decide. This law doesn't achieve the compelling interest of "protecting the sanctity of life" because it would interfere with parents decisions to make sure their child's life and health are well planned for, if they choose to keep the baby. Withholding information from patients about any abnormalities or disabilities threatens the parents rights, and the child's life. For people who claim to be "pro life," this bill certainly threatens the child's life that they so desperately want to protect.

This bill is unconstitutional because it invades people's privacy and desire to make private decisions for their family. Information is necessary in order to make this kind of decision. Not everyone believes in abortion. Preventing those who want to care for a child with disabilities by lack of information is just as bad as shaming those who choose to terminate for the same reason. Doctors should keep their morals and opinions out of their work, and other people's privacy. It's fine to tell a patient that you don't want to perform, like, or believe in abortion, but refer them to someone who does. As a journalism student, I am taught to be objective and unbiased in my work. Maybe doctors should start doing the same.