I keep hearing people saying:
"You Pro-Lifer's are lying about the recent New York Law. The Reproductive Health Act is designed to allow women to abort non-viable babies, or have an abortion if it endangers her life. Not for any reason at all! How about you read something other than your Pro-Life propaganda!"And to back it up, you get "Fact Checking" websites like Snopes telling you stuff like this:
OK, let's look at the law itself. You can find a copy [here]. It says:
"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."Folks might be tempted to think this means stuff which would endanger the woman’s life. But that’s not the case. As we saw in my [previous post] about Roe vs. Wade, the word "health" means literally anything related to health. It says:
"The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation."The Roe vs. Wade decision says that the distress of bringing an unwanted child into the world is a sufficient "health" reason to have an abortion.
Likewise, the Doe vs. Bolton decision says the following: (page 14)
"Medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age-relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."This means a 35-week pregnant woman can walk into a New York hospital or clinic, claim the impending responsibilities of parenting are causing her emotional distress, and the staff will be required by law to rip that kid limb from limb.
That's what the law allows and protects. And the people saying it's just about non-viable babies and saving mothers' lives are either deceived or deceiving.
----------------
The most common response to this has been:
"Well, even if the law technically allows that... surely such an extreme thing would never occur!"Alright, first thing: Neither of us have a crystal ball. In a state as populous as New York, we have no idea what might happen.
But more importantly, this objection misses the point.
Suppose you had a law which technically allowed a man to beat his wife - as long as he felt like she deserved it. It would be silly to reply: "Well, the law is OK because no man would ever do such a thing."
No, the fact that the law is even on the books would be a grave injustice against women. Such a law would deny their dignity, their rights. Even if no man utilized that law, the law itself would need to be opposed on principle.
Same goes with the New York law. The fact that the law would regard a 35-week gestation baby as mere garbage is an injustice which cannot be allowed to stand. It is contrary to human dignity and should be opposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment