Alabama's extreme, new abortion law

Alabama's (mostly male) legislature passed, and it's female governor signed, the most stringent anti-abortion law in the nation.    It makes performing an abortion a crime at any stage -- with the only exception being cases where the mother's life is at serious risk.    Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest do not qualify as exceptions.

And who is charged with the crime?    Not the woman who requests the abortion;  that would be bad political optics and arouse political opposition.   No, the penalty is for the doctor or other person who performs the abortion.   It carries a penalty of up to 99 years in prison.

The top Republican in the U.S. House, Kevin McCarthy, says he opposes the bill because it does not allow for rape and incest as exceptions.    Televangelist Pat Robertson says the law is "too extreme."  [see below]

If the law ever goes into effect, it will probably close all abortion facilities in the State of Alabama.    But that is not likely to happen, although the long range survival of Roe v. Wade is in more jeopardy than ever before.

First, this law will not go into effect until six months after passage.   Second, it will be appealed and will likely be over-turned by an Appeals Court.   It may never reach the Supreme Court.

The conservative majority at the Roberts Court seems content with an incremental approach, one that gradually makes it harder to obtain an abortion, without such a sweeping criminalization as does this law.

In fact, if this Alabama law did reach the top court, it would probably be overturned because it is so extreme and Chief Justice Roberts is an incrementalist and an  institutionalist to whom respect for existing law (in this case Roe v. Wade) is important;  and overturning established law must have a compelling rationale.

So, I think we can all take a deep breath about immediate criminalization.   The long-range view is somewhat less certain, especially if Trump gets reelected and has a chance to appoint more conservatives to the Supreme Court.


Let's look at the basic issue that makes this such a divisive issue and such a fierce fight.   In my view, "a woman's right to choose" is not the only basic issue we should be talking about.   It's also the unanswerable question of:   when does life begin?

Note the zeal with which anti-abortionists have pursued "personhood" bills that would declare an embryo a "person" at the moment of conception.   They recognize the importance of that designation for the larger argument.

As with all the difficult questions that reach the Supreme Court for decision, this is a clash between two rights.   Here it's the undeniable woman's right to choose what happens to her body in conflict with another human being's right to life.

I support a woman's right to choose an abortion early in pregnancy, because I do not accept the view that "life begins at conception."   I think creating a life is much more complicated and has many more steps than a sperm penetrating an ovum and beginning a process of developing.   At what point is this embryo a person, a human being?

That is more of a philosophical question than a biological one.   I'm confident that it does not become a person at conception.   If I believed that, I might also believe -- as many anti-abortionists believe -- that abortion is murder.

If one believes it's murder, then their draconian reactions and laws make more sense.   If one does not believe that life begins at conception, then when does it begin -- and, ergo, when does abortion become murder?

The fact is that we cannot give a good answer to those questions because development is a gradual process with no definitive end point to define when we can say "finished."

Until we recognize, however, that this is what we're really fighting about -- not just the woman's right to choose but that right in conflict with a human's right to life -- and refocus our efforts on this conflict -- I don't see any resolution.  Propaganda and debate will remain in the realm of religious preaching and feminist rhetoric -- while in contrast the ultimate decisions will be the result of power politics.

I do recognize that, in pregnancies that result from rape, or from coercive tactics in abusive relationships, or from incest, there is the additional factor that the woman was violated and impregnated against her will.   Yes, I agree that should be considered in coming to some decision about the balance of rights.

But, in none of these exceptions does the developing fetus ask to be created.   The sperm and egg do no know the circumstances of their creation.   So from the fetus' point of view, it is always the innocent victim.   So it's inconsistent that anti-abortionists would differentiate outcome based on how the pregnancy came to be:   i.e., why allow abortion in cases of rape and not in other cases?   Anti-abortionists who allow this exception are granting credence to the woman's right, because her pregnancy was forced upon her.   But, from the fetus/person's' point of view, that seems unfair.

But from the raped woman's view of her pregnancy, she is also the innocent victim.   Why should she have to bear the fruits of someone else's crime?

See, the more we look beyond the simplistic thinking, the more complex the problem becomes.   Complex problems with conflicting rights do now lend themselves to easy solutions.

Ralph

PS:   Note on Pat Robertson's calling it "too extreme:"   A later reading of his full quote clarifies that Robertson is not saying it's too extreme for him, but he thinks it's not the case to send up to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade (their real purpose) because it's too extreme and the Court probably won't take the case for a hearing.