The ink is not even dry on the jury findings against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell. But almost everyone has guessed what that verdict will mean to women's reproductive rights.
Even though the Gosnell case has egregious findings and clear cut evidence of malfeasance and medical malpractice, the case should not be used to forward abortion opponents' agenda. And yet it will, predictably so, as every inch of the land is scoured for cases that can bring 'personhood' to the unborn child.
What the abortion opponents are trying to do is to enact a federal ban on most if not all abortions after the 20th week of gestation. But if anyone thinks that is the only objective, he/she is mistaken. These are the first giant steps towards an almost complete erasure of abortion rights.
Some politicians are already equating the gruesome practices of the abortion doctor with the general picture of abortion medics today. There is no distinction offered for any of them. When politicians utter these statements, they know full well the damage they do.
What is more obtuse is the fact that the ban they are seeking is at 20th week of gestation, because they say, that's when the fetus can begin to feel pain. This type of 'medical' reasoning, is hypocritical at best. If the religious argument is made, then so be it. But to try and find a 'scientific' reasoning to enact a ban at a specific week of gestation to limit abortion is ridiculous at best.
However, fetus viability is the rational argument adopted by most congressional opponenta of the federal bill proposal. In fact, 28 weeks is when the fetus becomes viable in medical terms. But is that really the question to be made? Does it matter that Supreme Court precedents render unconstitutional abortion bans before fetus viability ensues? Well it doesn't seem so. This in essence is a polite attack, consider what else is going on stateside.
In addition such federal ban would not take into account the fact that if the fetus is found to be anomalous, or if the mother's life is at risk, the abortion would be justified as a therapeutic abortion. What the backers of this bill are saying however, is that the rare case in which the child is without a brain, or ill in a way that would preclude a normal life, are so rare that can they cannot be taken into account when proposing this blanket federal ban.
Although previous federal bans on abortion proposals have died on the Congress floor before, specifically in 2007, there is no telling that it will be struck down again. And there is no telling what could happen if the challenge to the ban, if it passed, is brought before the Supreme Court.
Op-Ed
Source : NPR 5.24.13
No comments:
Post a Comment