An early 19th Century author, Claude Frederic Bastiat, once wrote about looking beyond only what is seen and also considering what is not seen in decision making. So for example, to a pro-life person, the overturning of Roe v. Wade appears to be a great win on the surface. Is it not saving the lives of thousands of unborn children? But what may not be so obviously seen are the impacts this decision has had on the lives and health of women throughout the country. There are times when there are complications in a pregnancy, even a long-desired pregnany, and an abortion becomes medically necessary to protect the life or even the long-term health of the mother. Protection of the life of the unborn child should not come at the cost of the life or health of the mother. When a pregnancy endangers the life of a mother, I personally believe the life of the mother should be prioritized over the life of the unborn child. The mother may have other children depending on her care, not to mention all the other family and community members who care for her.
Two years ago, I wrote this piece on abortion pointing out that there are far more effective and humane ways to reduce abortion if that is indeed the end goal, so I won't repeat those points now. I wish I could say now that my fears that life and health of the mothers would be put at risk were unfounded, but sadly this is happening to women, and in most cases to women who had hoped to carry their pregnancies to term.
In the past two years, 14 states have implemented full abortion bans with 7 more implementing 6-18 week abortion bans (See NYT article). While all states have some sort of exception that is supposed to protect the life of the mother, leaving the decision of when medical intervention is necessary to protect the mother’s life up to the State instead of relying on the judgment of trained medical professionals has put too many women at unnecessary risk. Doctors who provide abortion care risk losing their licenses, heavy fines, and jail sentences of up to life imprisonment (e.g. Texas -see Texas law). Doctors who are legitimately concerned about being convicted for criminal action or who are simply opposed to abortion for any reason are sending women out of state (for those who can afford to travel) or sending them away and telling them to return once they are in sepsis or otherwise unquestionably on the verge of death. See 18 examples of women who wanted a pregnancy which resulted in unexpected complications and who due to abortion bans were denied adequate health care to protect their long-term health and life.
There are 10 states which do not allow rape or incest as an exception for receiving an abortion, forcing the survivor to carry a child with the genes of the rapist to term along with the possibility of genetic abnormalities generated by incest. Adding trauma to trauma. You may think this is rare, but a study reporting on 9 of the states found that in the 16 months after the Dobbs Decision, 64,565 pregnancies resulted from sexual assault, with 26,313 occurring in Texas alone. (See article on report.) In the US all pregnancies for young girls age 10-14 are the result of sexual assault, but these states are forcing children to give birth despite them not being old enough to take on the many responsibilities associated with parenting not to mention the associated long-term health risks (see article on health risks to young mothers).
In Louisiana women who have lost pregnancies have been subjected to C-section surgeries in lieu of standard abortive procedures so the state can avoid reporting that any abortion procedures were administered (See article). In a day and age when we have access to high quality medical care, subjecting women to riskier than necessary procedures without their consent and delaying life-saving or health-preserving medical care until the situation is dire is on par with the barbaric traditions of burning witches at the stake in my opinion. Six states have no provision for protecting the health of the mother, and many that do have very narrow definitions for what would qualify as a risk to health. See more reasons why the exceptions to total abortion bans are problematic to implement in the real world.
Project 2025: Make no mistake. A Trump-JDVance administration will be be supportive of implementing policies outlined in Project 2025. The Trump appointee-dominated Supreme Court has already begun paving the way for its implementation. Many right-wing donors to the Heritage Foundation and 110 other signatory groups to Project 2025 wish to narrowly define personhood at conception and propose to implement a nationwide full abortion ban along with banning technologies involving embryos for families wishing to create a family via IVF technology, and contraceptives that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg etc. Many women use such contraceptives to manage cycle irregularity, symptoms of endometriosis or peri-menopause, and to prevent pregnancy. Certain women have a condition (e.g. preeclampsia) where a pregnancy is literally life-threatening, and it should be 100% their choice as to whether they want to take that risk or not and how many times they are willing to take that risk. These are just a few unarguably legitimate uses of contraceptives which, again, should not be put into the hands of the State to determine when they are or are not appropriate. It is not in the best interest of our nation to allow a small group of wealthy, religious zealots to impose their religious restrictions on the entire country, creating more government overreach and fewer freedoms than have previously been seen in our lifetime.
There is much more that could be said and so many more examples on this subject that could be shared, but I am attempting to be brief. I hope this sampling is enough to lead to understanding that full abortion bans go hand in hand with severe and unacceptable consequences for women's health. If you support women's health, it is imperative that abortion be a safe and legal available tool in the box for protection of the life and health of women. Women in states with bans are suffering, especially women in lower income brackets. These states are also losing medical professionals who are leaving states with bans both for fear of criminal charges and frustration at not being able to provide women with the best available care in a timely manner to best preserve their life and health. You don’t have to be pro-abortion to support being pro-maternal health care, but being pro-maternal care does require that safe abortion services be legal and readily available.
-----
Lastly, to end on a lighter note, the Brene’ Brown question #2: You're called to do something brave, but your fear is real and stuck in your throat, what is the first thing you do? My Answer: Take deep breaths and then shake out my tight muscles to loosen them and and try to relax. What is your answer?
No comments:
Post a Comment