Twenty-four hours can be the difference between a woman choosing life or death. 

Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is overseeing a legislative attempt to repeal the state’s “24-hour waiting period,” in which women must complete an informed consent form before an abortion. 

Michigan is one of many states with such requirements. Currently, laws in 33 states require women seeking abortions to receive counseling or education before the procedure. Twenty-eight states mandate waiting periods after patients have given informed consent. 

Informed consent is not a new phenomenon, nor is it exclusive to the abortions. State laws across the nation mandate that healthcare providers inform patients of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of any medical treatment they receive. This allows patients to consider accurate information about the procedure and gives medical professionals time to address any questions that may come up. 

Why should abortion be the exception? 

When making decisions about one’s own body, it is critical for patients to be in the right state of mind and have time to rationalize their decision, especially if the outcome of a procedure is irreversible. Abortion clinics raise the stakes, as two lives are at risk. 

Whitmer’s scramble to eliminate the waiting period looks like an attempt to exploit expectant mothers faced with the weight of an irreversible decision, for the profit of the abortion industry. The permanency and life-long trauma of abortion extends far beyond the 24-hour window currently required, and Whitmer’s cavalier approach to the issue derails rights for women inside and out of the womb. 

Whitmer’s attempt to defy general medical and ethical standards shows her administration prioritizes profit over the safety of American women. 

There is strong sentiment from Whitmer’s supporters that Michigan’s statute requiring parental consent for minors to receive abortions should also be repealed. Whitmer’s proposed Reproductive Health Act will address such concerns, in addition to maximizing access to abortion across the state. 

If passed, the Reproductive Health Acts would also remove the ban on Medicaid reimbursement for abortions and eliminate specific building code criteria for abortion clinics. The latter policy is of particular controversy as many abortion facilities claim that current building criteria are unnecessary, making it more difficult to establish clinics across the nation. 

Shouldn’t these policies focus on regulating the safety of any invasive procedure? If safety isn’t a concern, then why not undertake radical deregulation of the medical industry as a whole? There seems to be no reason why these reforms are specific to abortion. Whitmer’s lack of concern about overregulation of dental or pediatric medicine, for example, is puzzling considering her push to the streamline the process for obtaining an abortion. If her goal is truly better “medical care” for all, her policies should apply to all fields of medicine. Instead, Michigan residents and Americans alike are witnessing a blatant pursuit of profit at the expense of human lives. If a woman isn’t required to contemplate her decision for a  minimum of 24 hours, she is more likely to make a quick, uninformed decision. This is a desirable outcome for abortion facilities, as they will inevitably see the number of abortions, and therefore profits, skyrocket. 

It is critical that we disregard Whitmer’s haphazard approach to policy and preserve the regulations still in place, which protect  women today and future generations.