So, perhaps this isn’t the most on-topic post for this blog, but I do want to talk about the “partial birth abortion” decision yesterday. Abortion is a huge political issue to me, and I’ve made it a point to be well-read and well-debated on the topic. I won’t make this a political grandstand or anything, I’ll just comment briefly on what the implications are for… well… the mothers involved, I guess. Or potential mothers in this case.
As I understand it the decision includes exceptions for situations in which the life or health of the mother is at risk. Thus, cases where a woman has to choose between getting chemo to prolong her own life or having a baby, or if a woman suffers an autoimmune disease which makes carrying the baby impossible, an accident, etc, etc. I think many of the ”partial birth” procedures done in this country are done for those reasons… but not all. I can think of a few other reasons women would get a late term procedure.
First, I know of women who have not discovered their pregnancy until they are four or five months along- their bodies simply don’t show “pregnancy symptoms,” perhaps their period has been irregular or often absent for other reasons, etc. I know of one or two women who have decided to terminate a pregnancy in the later term for this reason.
There are also women who wish to terminate but have to rearrange schedules and raise money in order to do so- sometimes they have to travel a very long distance to find a provider, arrange for time off of work for days at a time (between the 24 hour waiting period required in most states and the two or three day later term procedure), and the procedures are expensive and often not covered by health insurance providers so that can cause delays.
If a woman is a pregnant minor there may also be legal issues with obtaining consent… sometimes the process can stretch on. It happens. But I think neither of those first two classes of women has been permitted to have a “partial birth” procedure done for years, at least in the majority of states. So who is this law really affecting?
Perhaps it is the woman who wants her baby. But then finds out her baby has a genetic defect so bad that it will not survive more than X short number of years, and those X years will be full of pain. What about that woman? Should we really be making the choice for someone that they HAVE to carry to term a child they know beyond a doubt will not survive and will suffer? Is that the message of this decision? I don’t know. I don’t know what they think they are accomplishing (besides political posturing and a chance for an eventual shot at Roe itself).
There is one doctor in Kansas who has come up with his own procedure for late-term abortions to help these very women. I suppose the wealthy will still be able to get their procedures after all.
That’s really the issue, isn’t it? Well, definitely not THE issue, but AN issue that is really big. Abortion in general, and this particularly, is such a classist issue (in addition to the obvious sexism of it all). Rich women can afford to pay private doctors exhorbitant fees to get their procedures done. They can afford to travel to a state or country where it is legal. Poor women do not have that option. It’s ironic that the very same people who are so concerned about rich white women not having enough babies are preventing everyone else from making the same choice, isn’t it? Ironic in a “your views seem inconsistent with each other and while you are wrong in every possible way and it is sad, I have to laugh at your hypocrisy” kind of way.
