Tweet
It’s bad enough that we had the spectacle of states passing laws getting into the doctor-patient relationship by probing women’s ladyparts to check on the status of fetuses to deter a woman’s legal right to an abortion. Now the the “pro-life” crowd has realized that bible-beating is not the way to convince the mighty middle that the state needs halt access to abortion (and contraception rights, for that matter), they’ve pivoted and have started to cite pseudo science in the public sphere.
Take Missouri Senate candidate Todd “legitimate rape” Akin’s assertion that the “rape exception” is unnecessary because somehow, magically, a woman’s uterus shuts down to avoid pregnancy that results from rape.
Now we have womb-controller Rep. Joe Walsh claiming that there’s no need for an exception for “the health of the mother” because of the miracle of science in 2012 prevents women from dying during childbirth. Raw Story:
In their final debate before the November election, Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth noted that Walsh did not support “exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother” and he “would let a woman die rather than give a doctor the option to save her life.”
…Following the debate, the Illinois Republican told reporters that abortion was “absolutely” never medically necessary to save the life of the mother because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance,” according to WGN.
“This is an exception that opponents of life through out there to make us look unreasonable,” Walsh explained. “There’s no such exception as life of the mother. And as far as health of the mother, same thing. With advances in science and technology — health of the mother has become a tool for abortion for any time under any reason.”
Statistics released by the United Nations in 2010 indicated that the United States ranked 50th in the world for maternal deaths.
It’s sickening to see that we are even discussing this issue in 2012. And if you think about the rape exception…seriously, how would this work from the perspective of the “pro-life” crowd. Bridgette Dunlap at RH Reality Check mulls this prospective nightmare.
If efforts to criminalize abortion succeeded, would it be a medical, legal, or theological authority that would make the determination as to whether a woman qualified to have the banned procedure? If I was raped, would I have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or might a preponderance of the evidence standard suffice? Would I make my case to a doctor? A judge? A police officer? An ethics committee?
And on what basis would the appointed entity make the decision? The embrace by many politicians of an exception for the life but not the health of the patient would presumably require legislation that would then leave authorities in the position to determine, for example, whether a delay in beginning cancer treatment would be considered a threat to my life or merely a risk to my health.
The nebulousness of the exception concept is also relevant to the debate over the contraceptive coverage mandate. Opponents of the HHS mandate claim they are not opposed to insurance coverage for contraception in general, but only when it is used to prevent pregnancy. So what they want is an inquiry into the reasons my doctor writes me a prescription and the authority to rule on whether it is justified.
Will someone please explain how this inquiry would work? Congressman Paul Ryan? Cardinal Dolan? Anybody? We don’t know what conditions would qualify for treatment, how severe they must be, what evidence would be required, and to whom we would make our cases for treatment. To my boss? My plan administrator? A priest? Would there be an appeals process? Insurance plans and health facilities that currently purport to have health exceptions demonstrate that they just don’t work and have harmed women. Given that this problem has received national attention but opponents of contraception have offered no solutions, it seems they are fine with the occasional woman taking prescription painkillers unnecessarily or losing her ovary.
12 Comments
Always funny when people who deny evolution, think the Earth is 6000 years old and base their entire world view on a book written by ignorant barbarians suddenly turn to science and technology when it suits their goals.
Yea, that scientific achievement is called an abortion.
Doesn’t this jerk realize that a doctor cannot stand by and let someone die? He’s not allowed to do that. He would get sued by the family, perhaps the hospital and would almost certainly lose his license.
Say that to Rick Santorum’s face.
It’s so sickening to me that ignorant men like these think they have any right to make public policy on women’s health issues without consulting the people that deal with these issues all the time.
Another teabagger spouting the stupid.
Get him off the national stage as soon as possible.
Go Tammy!
Here’s the good news from a poll released today: Duckworth-54%, Walsh-39% (m.o.e. 4.9%).
To respond to Ms. Dunlap’s questions, one need only look at the state of affairs that existed pre-Roe v. Wade. In 1971, my mother was refused a medically necessary abortion (she had gone into premature labor at 23 weeks pregnant and was bleeding profusely) by a judge, who had no medical training whatsoever, because he decreed she was not “close enough to death” (that’s a direct quote from the ruling). Instead my mother was forced to suffer for 18 hours, in pain far worse than the labor to have either my sister or me, until her doctors had enough pieces of the fetus to prove she was no longer pregnant (sorry to be so graphic, but that’s the reality) and could do the procedure to stop her bleeding and save her life. During that ordeal, she had to have her full blood volume replaced with transfusions and my father decided to send my sister (6 years old) and me (4 years old) to my aunt’s so we would not be there when she died. Ma did ultimately survive, but was unable to have any more children, which she wanted. She was 32.
As for risks to women’s lives during pregnancy and childbirth, according to this article from MSNBC, 550 women die each year (out of 4 million births) from such complications . It’s a small number, but still 4X higher than the US public health goals.
Do you support Walsh’s position?
Rep. Joe Walsh is claiming that “there’s no need for an abortion exception for the health of the mother because of science”.
And you’re saying “a doctor cannot stand by and let someone die” which would indicate no need for an abortion exception?
If there’s a slightest doubt in your mind about the Republicans’ war on women, check out the post “The Repuglican War on Women (pt 1: Oh, my Akin Ryan) on the “Grumbles From an Old Grouch” blog. (grumblesfromanoldgrouch.com). While you’re there, sneak a peak at (pt 2: Meanwhile back in the states) It’s still under construction, but almost ready for prime time.
Just a question to the writer of this post, or anyone else who’d like to comment…
Why did you use the word “legal” in the opening sentence?
“It’s bad enough that we had the spectacle of states passing laws getting into the doctor-patient relationship by probing women’s ladyparts to check on the status of fetuses to deter a woman’s legal right to an abortion.”
I read it a few times and it stuck out to me as almost saying a woman doesn’t have a right to have an abortion, like we have other rights, but it’s legal so she can do it. . . I’m sure you didn’t intend that to be the case, and it’s probably just me, but I think it would sound better to remove the word legal from that sentence.
As for the arguments of the blog post:
These are all excellent questions: rape, live of the mother, health of the mother.
As you argue, and I agree they are almost impossible to enforce. . .
I have a different solution:
Allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy whenever she wants, but don’t allow the doctor to kill the baby. . . if it was a early term (first 13 weeks) abortion the baby would die, if it was a later term the baby might live, or might die depending on the baby’s age and health.
I know this might sound like an odd solution, but I think it could be supported by both sides. . . A woman should have total control over her body, and a baby has a right to life.