Roe v. Wade has never been so dangerously challenged as it has in recent weeks. Two laws signed by President Bush, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, treat women as though they are casual onlookers of their own pregnancies.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, signed by Bush in November, legislates against all second-trimester abortions. According to the government, the law ends an “inhumane” practice that causes pain to the fetus-the procedure punctures a fetus’s skull outside of the womb in order to remove it safely.
Testifying in opposition to the law are several distinguished doctors, who unanimously state that there is no harm to the fetus and that in most cases it is safer for the mother to abort than to continue the pregnancy.
Bush’s tendency to ignore the opinions of knowledgeable medical professionals is threatening women’s health, not only with abortion issues. By funding “abstinence only” education, which is found by numerous studies to be less than effective, it’s possible that Bush is creating the same problem that he is attempting to outlaw.
The details of partial-birth abortion may be gruesome, but it’s clear that medical professionals find no indication that the fetus experiences pain. In fact, New York Dr. Amos Grunebaum testified that he “would go to prison for doing a procedure I consider safer.”
Women who have abortions are often demonized, called lazy for undergoing a procedure that could have been prevented. But this is one of the largest misconceptions about partial-birth abortion. Most women have these abortions because the fetus has abnormalities and it is safer to remove it than to give birth.
Grunebaum emphasized that the majority of women who undergo the procedure in the second trimester of their pregnancies “really, really, really wanted to have a baby.”
This particular abortion procedure also helps preserve the fetus as intact as possible. “It is the same as any baby dying,” Grunebaum said. “People want to hold the fetus.” This has therapeutic effects for the woman-studies show that women grieve less after a failed pregnancy if they get to see the fetus.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, signed April 1, was inspired by the Laci Peterson case. The law says that a person who commits violence against a pregnant woman will be charged with two separate crimes, one for the mother and one for the fetus.
There is no doubt that all legislators consider violence toward pregnant women a heinous crime. But because the law made specific stipulations giving rights to a fetus, no matter what stage of development, it was not solely aimed at increasing punishment for such acts of violence. If that were the legislators’ intent, they might have passed an amendment introduced by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, which states that defendants can be charged with the offense of harming a fetus without granting rights to the fetus itself.
“Violence against women, including pregnant women, is a significant problem in America, one that should be addressed,” said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “This bill does nothing but shift the focus away from real solutions by undermining women’s health and reproductive freedoms.”
By giving rights to the fetus, the law is in direct conflict with Roe v. Wade. If killing a fetus is murder, according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, then so is abortion. What’s more, the law could potentially be used to prosecute a woman who harms or kills her fetus unknowingly.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is being challenged simultaneously in three courts: San Francisco, New York and Lincoln, Nebraska.
If you feel that you are unable to sit passively while the courts debate, join other Guilford students in the March for Women’s Lives on April 25 in Washington, D.C., to support women’s rights before they have vanished altogether.
Call (336) 399-7168 for more information.