WATCH: GOP Lawmaker Compares Getting Abortion to Buying a Car and Picking Carpeting

Jimmy Emerson/Flickr

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.


A bill is making its way through the Missouri House of Representatives that would require women seeking abortions to undergo mandatory ultrasounds and increase the waiting period for an abortion from 24 to 72 hours—measures that are necessary, in the words of the bill’s sponsor, because women should have as much information about pregnancy as he seeks out when he’s shopping for a car or picking out carpeting for his house.

Republican Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger made the comparison between cars and pregnancy while taking questions on the bill before the Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities. In his remarks, captured on video, Gatschenberger noted that he has many sisters and daughters who put ultrasound images of their children on the fridge. An off-camera committee member then asked him, “Do you not trust your sisters to make their decisions for themselves?”

Gatschenberger replied:

“Well, yesterday, I went over to the car lot over here. I was just going to get a key made for a vehicle. And I was looking around because I’m considering maybe buying a new vehicle. Even when I buy a new vehicle—this is my experience, again—I don’t go right in there and say I want to buy that vehicle, and then, you know, you leave with it. I have to look at it, get information about it, maybe drive it, you know, a lot of different things. Check prices. There’s lots of things that I do, putting into a decision. Whether that’s a car, whether that’s a house, whether that’s any major decision that I put in my life. Even carpeting. You know, I was just considering getting some carpeting or wood in my house. And that process probably took, you know, a month, because of just seeing all the aspects of it.”

In a later exchange between Gatschenberger and Rep. Stacey Newman, a Democrat on the committee, Newman called his remarks “offensive to every woman in this room.” Gatschenberger replied to her that he wasn’t comparing reproductive health decisions to buying a car—and then went on to compare reproductive health decisions to buying a car.

Here’s part of the exchange:

Newman:  Your original premise, that a woman who is receiving any type of care with her pregnancy, regardless of what decisions are involved, is somehow similar to purchasing a key for an automobile—

Gatschenberger: If you were listening to my explanation, it had nothing to do [with] that…In making a decision—not making a life-changing decision—but making a decision to buy a car, I put research in there to find out what to do.

Newman: Do you believe that buying a car is in any way related to any type of pregnancy decision?

Gatschenberger: Did I say that?

Newman: That’s what I’m asking you.

Gatschenberger: I did not say that. I’m saying my decision to accomplish something is, I get the input in it. And that’s what this bill does, is give more information for people.

Newman: So you’re assuming that women who are under care…for their pregnancy, need additional information that they’re not already receiving?

Gatschenberger: I’m just saying they have the opportunity, it increases the opportunity. If you want to know what this bill does, [it] increases the opportunity.

See the whole video here:

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.