The Abortion Debate
The recent law in New York state expanding abortion
rights in the Empire State has stoked the flames on an already heated
issue. The law was greeted with cheers
from supporters, while it contains several provisions that are alarming to
opponents.
Regardless of where you stand in general on abortion rights, there
are a few provisions that are noteworthy in terms of the strategic value in
establishing precedent to counter the shifting tides in the battle over
abortion. With the recent appointment of Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme
Court, the court has a conservative majority for the first time in
generations. In fact, the appointment of
justices to all levels of the federal courts has been a major factor in
presidential elections going back to the 1980s.
In the years since the Roe v Wade decision made access to abortion
a “right” across the country, conservatives have managed to slowly implement
restrictions on access to abortion services, and advances in science and
medicine have led to declining support.
Let’s take a look at a few of the provisions of the new law that
expand the definition beyond the limits that many supporters of abortion
“rights” would consider reasonable.
- The law removes abortion from the criminal
code.
§ 7. The section heading, opening paragraph and subdivision 1 of section 125.05 of the penal law are amended to read as follows: Homicide[, abortion] and related offenses; [definitions of terms] DEFINITION. The following [definitions are] DEFINITION IS applicable to this article:[1.] "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.
Rather than just expand access to abortion, the law also removes provisions increasing the penalty for someone who assaults a pregnant woman and causes the death of her unborn child. There is no recourse to the surviving mother and/or father for that loss.
Why would this be included, then? While the stated intent in the bill says that the laws dating back to 1970 and before needed updated to avoid Constitutionality issues, it also appears that the unspoken intent is to counter the argument of abortion opponents that to charge an assailant with murder for killing an unborn child is hypocritical when not prosecuting someone performing an abortion in a clinic. - The law removes the requirement to be a licensed physician, so that a physician’s assistant, nurse, or midwife can perform the procedure.§ 2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH- IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.
This is undoing a tactic used by abortion opponents to limit access to those wanting an abortion. In conservative states, the requirement for a licensed surgeon to perform an abortion is an acknowledgment that abortion is a form of surgery. This limits the number of people authorized to perform the procedure. Considering that all doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, most take issue with killing an unborn child after reaching a level of viability. By allowing any "health care practitioner" to perform the procedure, it expands the pool of potential abortionists. It also reduces the cost to abortion clinics for hiring someone to do the procedure. - The law allows for abortions after 24 weeks if the fetus is not viable or the mother's life or health is in danger.§ 2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH- IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, and most of the general public who support abortion rights, if asked, will say that they only support it early in the pregnancy when the fetus is presumably not sufficiently developed to be recognized yet as a human being deserving of rights. The only exception is in the case when the child is going to die shortly after birth or if complications from the pregnancy threaten the life of the mother.
The decision in Roe v Wade established that the government could not prevent abortions during the first or second trimester based on the test of "viability" of the fetus (ability to live outside the womb, with medical assistance). Also, the decision accepted that viability varied case to case. At the time, conventional medical wisdom said that a fetus would become viable somewhere between 24 and 28 weeks. Since then, medical technology has made it possible for premature infants to survive at 22 weeks (50%) or even 20 weeks (10%). The law still maintains that abortion is unrestricted up to 24 weeks, even though there is a 50% survival rate at 22 weeks.
Also, to protect the mother's "life or health" is not just an exception for a pregnancy which is nearly certain to end her life due to complications, but it is actually an exception to protect her "health". Considering that pregnancy can cause temporary health issues that are not life-threatening, as well as longer term health effects, this is another way of allowing an abortion with any motivation under the guise of protecting the mother's health. - The law allows for girls under age 16 to purchase contraceptives without parental consent requirements or provisions restricting access to abortion-inducing drugs
§ 4. Subdivision 8 of section 6811 of the education law is REPEALED.
The referenced section states:Selling contraceptives to girls under the age of 16 is one thing, but doing so without any restrictions on "day after" pills that will induce an abortion is essentially giving a free pass to teen and pre-teen girls to make abortion decisions without any counseling.
New York Consolidated Laws, Education Law - EDN § 6811. Misdemeanors It shall be a class A misdemeanor for:
8. Any person to sell or distribute any instrument or article, or any recipe, drug or medicine for the prevention of conception to a minor under the age of sixteen years; the sale or distribution of such to a person other than a minor under the age of sixteen years is authorized only by a licensed pharmacist but the advertisement or display of said articles, within or without the premises of such pharmacy is hereby prohibited;
So, this law is clearly not just updating the law to pass constitutional muster but also a political move intended to establish
that the State of New York and other solidly blue states can play the same game
as Kansas and other red states that regularly pass laws further restricting
access, testing the boundaries of what the Supreme Court will allow.
Political maneuvering of this sort is to be expected in terms of trying to manipulate the courts through legal precedents and public opinion through carefully worded press releases and speeches. However, the real issue with the abortion debate is the general lack of civility from many on both sides of the debate and on the misinformation disseminated long before "fake news" became a thing. Our country is increasingly divided along political lines due to the tribalism encouraged through social media, 24 hours news and talk shows, and the largely unregulated internet.
Political maneuvering of this sort is to be expected in terms of trying to manipulate the courts through legal precedents and public opinion through carefully worded press releases and speeches. However, the real issue with the abortion debate is the general lack of civility from many on both sides of the debate and on the misinformation disseminated long before "fake news" became a thing. Our country is increasingly divided along political lines due to the tribalism encouraged through social media, 24 hours news and talk shows, and the largely unregulated internet.
Here are a couple examples of misinformation on both sides of the debate:
Democrats have insisted in protecting public funding for Planned Parenthood as the only source of necessary healthcare for low income women. Meanwhile, Republicans have been trying for years to end those government subsidies given that organization's status as the largest provider of abortions nationwide. The truth is that there are many free clinics offering the same services, except for abortion, as Planned Parenthood, and they do so with limited funding. If the US government would divert the money currently earmarked for Planned Parenthood, those free clinics could expand into the same areas to provide health services for low income women.
Opponents of abortion have similarly stretched the truth or unwittingly passed along misleading information in making arguments in favor of the pro-life position. One example is citing laws in the Netherlands allowing for infant euthanasia and late term abortions. Some have asserted that the law allows doctors to euthanize an infant without parental consent, which is not true. In fact, the law is very specific in requiring agreement between the physician and parents as well as other criteria such as determining that the condition is terminal and urgent and that there are no other options remaining to relieve pain and suffering.
Another aspect of the debate to note is in the choice of words used by people on each side of the debate. Reproductive rights is a euphemism for the right to use birth control, have unprotected sex, or kill an unwanted child before birth. The new law in New York uses this approach to justify the contents of the bill. The opening statement of the bill reads as follows:
In contrast, on the other side of the debate, pro-life is the position that all life is sacred, whether regarding abortion or euthanasia, and pro-abortion is the position that abortion should be legal. I would suggest that the former is euphemistic and the latter is more accurate. Still, I suppose you could argue that abortion opponents care more about the life of the child than the life of the mother. In reality, the value of life depends on your worldview.
Yes, technically one could say that abortion is a "reproductive service," but most people would think of reproductive services as gynecological care, obstetrical care, and birth control aimed at preventing pregnancy. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that abortion is available in the state of New York.
Similarly, Pro-choice is a belief that women should be able to choose what many would consider murder of an unborn child, while anti-choice is the believe that the life of an unborn child is inherently as valuable as that of a child after birth or that of the mother. So, the choice of the mother is more important than the wishes of the unborn child. Given how hard most people instinctively cling to life, it is hard to believe that most of those unborn would choose not to live if we were able to ask.
In contrast, on the other side of the debate, pro-life is the position that all life is sacred, whether regarding abortion or euthanasia, and pro-abortion is the position that abortion should be legal. I would suggest that the former is euphemistic and the latter is more accurate. Still, I suppose you could argue that abortion opponents care more about the life of the child than the life of the mother. In reality, the value of life depends on your worldview.
If you have a Judeo-Christian, Hindu, or one of many other religious/spiritual worldviews, you will value life. As a Christian, I see life as created by God in the "image of God" and of equal value regardless of age, race, gender, social status, or stage of development. In contrast, an honest Darwinist will see humans as just another animal that evolved randomly, and survival of the fittest dictates that the strong have the right (even responsibility) to displace the weak.
Also, there is the question of who or what is a "person"? As pointed out earlier, the new law in New York, in removing abortion from the criminal code is very clear in defining "person" to exclude an unborn child.
That is a clever and effective way to protect the right to an abortion, because it removes any ambiguity from the question of whether a human being who is alive and has not been born is legally considered a "person" with rights.
Naturally, this creates other problems, beyond the impact of the law on the sense of justice for parents who lose a much-anticipated child as the result of an assault or other criminal activity, unable to see the person that caused the death of their child even charged with homicide. By it's very definition, "homicide" is the killing of one human by another. Linguistically, it is derived from Latin homicidium formed of two parts: homo ("human being") + caedere ("to cut, kill"). Some definitions now say that homicide is the killing of one "person" by another,
So now, in New York, at least, a "person" is no longer simply considered a human. The zygote/embryo/fetus may have human DNA, in an immature state of development, with full potential to become an adult human, but simply by not having been born that human being is not legally a person with regard to homicide. Does that mean a child delivered by C-section is not a person, either, because they were not born in a natural sense? If removal of the child directly from the uterus surgically is a form of birth, then what about partial-birth abortions, when the child is actually partially delivered alive vaginally before having his or her skull punctured to collapse the skull so the now-dead infant is delivered more easily?
Most people consider partial-birth abortion to be barbaric and think of abortion rights only being applicable in the early stages of pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest. However, there are many supporters of the new law defending the practice when asked about it, and in other states such as Rhode Island and Virginia there are lawmakers calling for expanding abortion to be legal up to or even during delivery.
In a discussion on Facebook a few years ago, while discussing abortion rights, there were a few friends of my college-aged son that were defending the pro-choice position. It was a cordial discussion, but they kept focusing on the right to take an abortion-inducing drug, when I was trying to focus the discussion at that point on abortion later in pregnancy after the fetus has developed to the point of having a heartbeat. While I would defend the life of a child at any stage of pregnancy, I couldn't even get these young ladies to acknowledge boundaries, when their primary concern was ending an unwanted pregnancy early.
Most people just want what's convenient for them and/or echo the sound-bites they read and hear in the news channels and social media feeds they frequent. Nobody seems to be willing to have an open honest conversation about the fundamental issues underlying the debate.
On one side are people that acknowledge that desperate women will attempt to abort their pregnancies whether it is legal or not, and they just want to ensure that when they come to that point, they should be protected from harming themselves severely in the process. On the other side are people concerned for the lives of the unborn children who are never given the chance to experience life or make any choices for themselves.
Desperate women need help getting out of their desperate situations. It is less common for a teenage girl today to be disowned by her family for getting pregnant, but still there are those who are just embarrassed or who simply have bought into the notion that they have the right to do what they want and avoid any consequences. If they need help, there are those who will give it, although churches and other organizations can and should do more to help.
Since the Roe v Wade decision back in 1973, society has changed. For abortion rights advocates, it's not about making abortion safe and rare, but rather it is about establishing a woman's right to an abortion under any circumstances for any reason. Opponents of abortion are so focused on protecting the unborn that they sometimes forget that many women choose abortion out of a sense of desperation, although most go out of their way to volunteer at pregnancy crisis centers to try and help those women get the care they need and find a way to choose life for their unborn child and to avoid compounding a mistake.
So now, in New York, at least, a "person" is no longer simply considered a human. The zygote/embryo/fetus may have human DNA, in an immature state of development, with full potential to become an adult human, but simply by not having been born that human being is not legally a person with regard to homicide. Does that mean a child delivered by C-section is not a person, either, because they were not born in a natural sense? If removal of the child directly from the uterus surgically is a form of birth, then what about partial-birth abortions, when the child is actually partially delivered alive vaginally before having his or her skull punctured to collapse the skull so the now-dead infant is delivered more easily?
Most people consider partial-birth abortion to be barbaric and think of abortion rights only being applicable in the early stages of pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest. However, there are many supporters of the new law defending the practice when asked about it, and in other states such as Rhode Island and Virginia there are lawmakers calling for expanding abortion to be legal up to or even during delivery.
In a discussion on Facebook a few years ago, while discussing abortion rights, there were a few friends of my college-aged son that were defending the pro-choice position. It was a cordial discussion, but they kept focusing on the right to take an abortion-inducing drug, when I was trying to focus the discussion at that point on abortion later in pregnancy after the fetus has developed to the point of having a heartbeat. While I would defend the life of a child at any stage of pregnancy, I couldn't even get these young ladies to acknowledge boundaries, when their primary concern was ending an unwanted pregnancy early.
Most people just want what's convenient for them and/or echo the sound-bites they read and hear in the news channels and social media feeds they frequent. Nobody seems to be willing to have an open honest conversation about the fundamental issues underlying the debate.
On one side are people that acknowledge that desperate women will attempt to abort their pregnancies whether it is legal or not, and they just want to ensure that when they come to that point, they should be protected from harming themselves severely in the process. On the other side are people concerned for the lives of the unborn children who are never given the chance to experience life or make any choices for themselves.
Desperate women need help getting out of their desperate situations. It is less common for a teenage girl today to be disowned by her family for getting pregnant, but still there are those who are just embarrassed or who simply have bought into the notion that they have the right to do what they want and avoid any consequences. If they need help, there are those who will give it, although churches and other organizations can and should do more to help.
Since the Roe v Wade decision back in 1973, society has changed. For abortion rights advocates, it's not about making abortion safe and rare, but rather it is about establishing a woman's right to an abortion under any circumstances for any reason. Opponents of abortion are so focused on protecting the unborn that they sometimes forget that many women choose abortion out of a sense of desperation, although most go out of their way to volunteer at pregnancy crisis centers to try and help those women get the care they need and find a way to choose life for their unborn child and to avoid compounding a mistake.
As I mentioned in a blog post 10 years ago, The Problem with Roe v Wade, overturning Roe v Wade would not change the law in New York. In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court overturns the decision that established abortion as a right in the US, each state's current abortion laws would remain in effect. That was the driver behind the new law, to expand the rights to a level that pushes the boundaries, stirs debate, and ensures that in one liberal state, at lease, abortion will remain available with few restrictions.
Changing the law in New York is a matter of conscience of the voters in New York. As long as the current societal trends continue, the law will remain and debate will continue to intensify. Abortion will remain available in some states and, hopefully, will be restricted in other states, until Christ returns.
Changing the law in New York is a matter of conscience of the voters in New York. As long as the current societal trends continue, the law will remain and debate will continue to intensify. Abortion will remain available in some states and, hopefully, will be restricted in other states, until Christ returns.
He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”For my friends on the other side of this debate, let's continue to engage in civil discourse on the subject. We need to do our part to change the tone of the conversation and work toward resolution. Ensure that abortion remains safe and rare where it is legal by the will of the people. Ensure that all women have access to reproductive care and given help in their desperate circumstances without having to resort to abortion. Let's address the issues like responsible adults and stop escalating the issue for political gain.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20)
Comments
Post a Comment