Two views of the abortion issue today.
The Fundies have successfully created and sold the political term "partial-birth abortion." But a person who worked at a hospital specializing in late abortions (the medical term) has a better name: Mercy Abortion.
One might wonder how it is a woman can't manage to have an abortion within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. There are several reasons. They tend to be younger, poor, and live in an area where health care in general is hard to get. First she must get over the denial. Then she must raise the money (frequently a trip to the pawn shop is required). This can take a while.
But there is one more reason why a mercy abortion may be necessary. It is only late in the pregnancy that some devastating birth defects come to light. Some are so extreme the baby will not live. If carried to term (perhaps for more than 2 months) the mother is faced with giving birth only to watch the baby die while running the risk of damaging her fertility (I'll let you read the article for details). And even families who are strongly anti-abortion change their tune when faced with this situation.
I don't remember if many of the late abortion laws are written to allow for the exception of the mother's health or whether it must be her life that's at stake. Risking fertility sounds to me like a health issue. If so (and a big if) it makes me wonder if the Fundies want to make sure a woman keeps her fertility (marriage is about babies, isn't it?) or if they take the opposite view that if you can't carry a baby to term you don't deserve to be fertile.
But the Fundies aren't done yet.
Several people, most notably Dan Savage (alas, these links are general, not to the specific comments of interest), has warned that the Fundies are not only interested in banning gay sex. They want to ban all sex that does not conform to their standards.
An example of this is a proposal from the Health and Human Services Department, in league with the Fundies, to redefine many forms of contraception as abortion. In particular they want to ban those kinds of contraceptives that work by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. This is the kind used 40% of the time. The result would be that government medical plans would no longer pay for these contraceptives.
No comments:
Post a Comment