Access to abortion in most states will not change. It will tighten up in some others. It may become very tight in a few. And it may yet expand in a few others.
Thanks for an excellent article. I'm a man in the UK.
My wife is very exercised about this and one of the points she raises is whether abortion is allowed if a woman's life is in danger. There was a case recently where a pregnant American woman in Malta had a placenta which was detaching and causing bleeding which would have been fatal for the woman. The abortion was not allowed in Malta and the woman was taken to hospital in Spain for treatment. I know this is not America but I assume the same situation could arise.
I remember reading quite some time ago about ectopic pregnancies which are also a danger to the woman if allowed to develop. The treatment for this condition always ends in a termination of the pregnancy. The article I was reading said that under proposed legislation in that state (I can't remember which) treatment would be illegal and if carried out would result in the doctor being charged with murder. It seems that most ectopic pregnancies are detected before 12 weeks so possibly the situation would not arise under the 15 week rule.
Denying essential care ... what a barbaric business.
Phrases like the "welfare of the mother" have often been tossed out there when discussing qualifications to abortion restrictions, and I am not aware of horror stories of pregnant mothers being denied abortions that would save /their/ lives. But, in this last year we have heard stories of people being denied essential care for not being vaccinated. I don't know the details of those stories, but, what I get out of it is: There may yet be folks out there who are so committed to rules (like Javert from "Les Miserables") that they imperil the rest of us. There really may be a "rules-versus-discretion" tradeoff at work in some of these environments. Will such tradeoffs show up in matters involving abortion? Have such tradeoffs showed up?
But, another point: one can imagine ambiguity in determining physical conditions. If circumstances are always unambiguous--that is one thing. But what if there is genuine disagreement over conditions?
For example, someone I know was suffering appendicitis. A difficulty was that it was presenting in a strange way; it wasn't necessarily obvious to any one medical practitioner what was going on.
It was the good fortune of this fellow that his mother-in-law was a retired medical practitioner, and she (correctly) discerned what was going on. She explained this to the personnel at the local hospital. They did not accept her interpretation, and they then denied the patient critical care. They then ventured to another hospital in the next town over and explained the case and its unusual features. The attending physician understood what was going on and implemented suitable emergency care. The mother-in-law turned out to be correct. She saved her son-in-law from a very bad situation.
Now, here is a story of actual, unambiguous denial of care. (So, yes people do get denied care when it's obvious to /everyone/ that they need it.) A fellow is visiting some wildlife refuge in Lesotho. He walking around the compound, turns around, and then finds a big horned something-or-other bearing down on him. He gets gored. His intestines are hanging out; serious business.
He needs to go across the border to a capable facility in South Africa. But, he can't get helicoptered out, Because Arcane Rules. The authorities will neither allow a helicopter to fly in from South Africa to get him nor allow a helicopter to fly out into South Africa. He ends up being driven out down bumpy roads in the bushweld all the way to the border. Then helicoptered out to a capable facility.
His wife attended him the whole way. He survived to tell the tale.
Deciding on ending a pregnancy involves three people - mother, father, potential child. Each has independent rights of consideration. Courts and law develop to protect those rights. Various states may develop policy to speak for the rights of the child, nothing wrong with that. Hopefully the fathers involved get a chance to weigh in but given the burdens of pregnancy, courts might consider her claims more valid. While slogans seem to replace reason by emotion, law must exist to protect the rights of all involved. Once we get past the use of abortion as a wedge issue maybe we can develop a reasoned set of laws.
Exactly, the wedge issue has been de-centralized. While at the moment the extremes (from none to just prior to birth) arouse the public, we might expect over time some trend toward due consideration of the three people involved in the abortion decision. After all, the policies in many states pre-Roe were more liberal than the policies now being considered. I think we will return there in due time to a balance.
Thanks for an excellent article. I'm a man in the UK.
My wife is very exercised about this and one of the points she raises is whether abortion is allowed if a woman's life is in danger. There was a case recently where a pregnant American woman in Malta had a placenta which was detaching and causing bleeding which would have been fatal for the woman. The abortion was not allowed in Malta and the woman was taken to hospital in Spain for treatment. I know this is not America but I assume the same situation could arise.
I remember reading quite some time ago about ectopic pregnancies which are also a danger to the woman if allowed to develop. The treatment for this condition always ends in a termination of the pregnancy. The article I was reading said that under proposed legislation in that state (I can't remember which) treatment would be illegal and if carried out would result in the doctor being charged with murder. It seems that most ectopic pregnancies are detected before 12 weeks so possibly the situation would not arise under the 15 week rule.
Good morning, Steve --
Denying essential care ... what a barbaric business.
Phrases like the "welfare of the mother" have often been tossed out there when discussing qualifications to abortion restrictions, and I am not aware of horror stories of pregnant mothers being denied abortions that would save /their/ lives. But, in this last year we have heard stories of people being denied essential care for not being vaccinated. I don't know the details of those stories, but, what I get out of it is: There may yet be folks out there who are so committed to rules (like Javert from "Les Miserables") that they imperil the rest of us. There really may be a "rules-versus-discretion" tradeoff at work in some of these environments. Will such tradeoffs show up in matters involving abortion? Have such tradeoffs showed up?
But, another point: one can imagine ambiguity in determining physical conditions. If circumstances are always unambiguous--that is one thing. But what if there is genuine disagreement over conditions?
For example, someone I know was suffering appendicitis. A difficulty was that it was presenting in a strange way; it wasn't necessarily obvious to any one medical practitioner what was going on.
It was the good fortune of this fellow that his mother-in-law was a retired medical practitioner, and she (correctly) discerned what was going on. She explained this to the personnel at the local hospital. They did not accept her interpretation, and they then denied the patient critical care. They then ventured to another hospital in the next town over and explained the case and its unusual features. The attending physician understood what was going on and implemented suitable emergency care. The mother-in-law turned out to be correct. She saved her son-in-law from a very bad situation.
Now, here is a story of actual, unambiguous denial of care. (So, yes people do get denied care when it's obvious to /everyone/ that they need it.) A fellow is visiting some wildlife refuge in Lesotho. He walking around the compound, turns around, and then finds a big horned something-or-other bearing down on him. He gets gored. His intestines are hanging out; serious business.
He needs to go across the border to a capable facility in South Africa. But, he can't get helicoptered out, Because Arcane Rules. The authorities will neither allow a helicopter to fly in from South Africa to get him nor allow a helicopter to fly out into South Africa. He ends up being driven out down bumpy roads in the bushweld all the way to the border. Then helicoptered out to a capable facility.
His wife attended him the whole way. He survived to tell the tale.
Deciding on ending a pregnancy involves three people - mother, father, potential child. Each has independent rights of consideration. Courts and law develop to protect those rights. Various states may develop policy to speak for the rights of the child, nothing wrong with that. Hopefully the fathers involved get a chance to weigh in but given the burdens of pregnancy, courts might consider her claims more valid. While slogans seem to replace reason by emotion, law must exist to protect the rights of all involved. Once we get past the use of abortion as a wedge issue maybe we can develop a reasoned set of laws.
And I just had this thought today: Judicial nomination processes might be relieved of the abortion kabuki going forward.
Exactly, the wedge issue has been de-centralized. While at the moment the extremes (from none to just prior to birth) arouse the public, we might expect over time some trend toward due consideration of the three people involved in the abortion decision. After all, the policies in many states pre-Roe were more liberal than the policies now being considered. I think we will return there in due time to a balance.