‘Fetal heartbeat’ laws hurt women
All lives are important, not just the unborn
“Fetal heartbeat” laws are all the rage right now. Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have passed bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. Similar bills are working their way through the legislatures of South Carolina, Louisiana and Alabama.
Of the bills passed, only Georgia allows an exception for rape and incest; in Alabama the sponsor of a bill that would ban nearly all abortions threatened to kill the legislation if rape or incest exceptions were added.
These laws effectively outlaw abortion at six weeks, just two weeks after a missed period, a point at which many women don’t even realize they are pregnant. The likelihood that a preteen or teenage girl would know she is pregnant in time to beat this cutoff is almost nonexistent. Indeed, the only reason an 11-year-old Ohio girl recently impregnated by a rapist wouldn’t be forced to give birth is because the law isn’t in effect yet and its implementation will likely be delayed by legal challenges.
Abortion-rights opponents believe this is just moral consistency. If an embryo or fetus is a person, then ending that life is murder. Nobody should be murdered, ergo an 11-year-old who has been raped should be forced to carry her pregnancy to term.
See, a not so funny thing happens when you blindly follow ideology — or in this case, theology — to its natural end point. You become an extremist. If your principles inextricably lead you to the conclusion that, for example, a teenager impregnated by her father should be forced to give birth to that child, it’s time to go back to the drawing board.
Recently, I followed the outrage over a New York abortion law, which conservatives claim allows abortion even as the woman is giving birth, and the GOP’s failed attempt to pass the “BornAlive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” which would add specific penalties for actions already illegal under a law that received bipartisan support in 2002. Many defenders of the redundant “Born Alive” act claim that if even one baby is not provided medical care after surviving an abortion, it is reason enough for the law. But when it comes to far more American children being murdered by guns, many of the same people provide only “thoughts and prayers,” not legislation. I’m struggling to see the moral consistency here. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the sudden uptick in antiabortion measures are more about the upcoming 2020 elections than any real interest in protecting innocent lives.
As for the New York law, the entire premise underlying the anti-abortion fury that erupted following its passage is that women routinely carry pregnancies for nine months and then during delivery order the doctor to abort the baby, for, well, no reason. What woman would do this?
It’s theoretically possible, but is it really plausible this is a regular occurrence? While abortion opponents paint the New York law as an abortion freefor-all, the law allows abortion past 24 weeks only if a health care professional determines the life or health of the mother is at risk, or a fetus isn’t viable. Abortion opponents frequently claim that the “health” exception to late-term abortion laws are just a ruse to allow women abortions whenever they want for any reason. But according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, health issues that might require a woman to terminate a pregnancy late-term “include premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption and placenta accreta. Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke and septic shock.”
Doctors, not the government, should be helping women decide what to do in these situations.
As troubling as these new moves by anti-abortion activists are, there is one upside. There is now perfect clarity on where the lines have been drawn, and the likelihood that this extremism will be embraced by the American people is close to zero. Let the debate begin.