The case has nothing to do with the ban on nearly all abortions that was rejected so soundly by South Dakotans on Election Day.
This case is about a South Dakota law that gets to the very core of the abortion controversy: When do we become human beings?
The law would require that doctors tell women intent on having abortions that the procedure would "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
I thought this column was particularly timely, given some of the arguments over Planned Parenthood's objections to the informed consent portions of the Pennsylvania law upheld in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. One commenter argued that PP was already providing abortion information, but that the information required in the law wasn't medical or accurate at all, and was designed to "scare off" women seeking abortions.
I suspect the same commenter would object to doctors being required to state that abortions "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" as well. But such objections do beg the question, if the baby isn't a "human being," then what precisely is he/she? And another question I think naturally follows is this: if a baby born at 23 weeks is a person entitled to life, why is an abortion at 23 weeks merely a woman exercising her "right to choose"? In other words, is personhood merely an accident of location?
Hentoff continues:
Arguing against this at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, a lawyer for Planned Parenthood, Timothy Branson, said the language of this South Dakota law "injects an ideological component into the discussion of the unsettled question of when human life begins. "This is the first case," he emphasized, "that really shows where the line is."
Yes, it is.
As Adam Liptak reported in the Oct. 31 New York Times, a panel of the court of appeals agreed with Planned Parenthood and blocked enforcement of the law. Many states do have "informed consent" laws by which doctors must provide factual information about the procedure to women, and its health risks. These laws have been upheld by other federal appeals courts.
What, then, makes the South Dakota "informed consent" law different? Before this case (Planned Parenthood v. Rounds) — that "really shows where the line is" — reached the Eighth Circuit, Karen E. Scheier, a federal district court judge in South Dakota — had stopped enforcement of the law with a preliminary injunction back in June 2005, in which she ruled:
"Unlike the truthful, non-misleading medical and legal information (tell that to my commenters!--Ed.) doctors were required to disclose" (in the Supreme Court's 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision), "the South Dakota statute requires abortion doctors to enunciate the state's viewpoint on an unsettled medical, philosophical, theological and scientific issue — that is, whether a fetus is a human being."
Agreeing with her, The New York Times noted, Eighth Circuit Judge Diana Murphy, writing for the 2-to-1 majority, declared: "Governmentally compelled expression is particularly problematic when a speaker is required by the state to impart a political or ideological message contrary to the individual's own views."
What strikes me as particularly odd about this argument is that most people who will make it see nothing wrong with compelling pharmacists to distribute contraceptives, even if it is "contrary to the individual's own views." Why is compelling speech verboten in one case, but compelling behavior acceptable in another?
Why is compelling speech verboten in one case, but compelling behavior acceptable in another?
ReplyDeleteIt's the job of a pharmacist to provide prescription medication when given a valid prescription. A pharmacist who decides that their conscience will no longer permit them to do that, should not be working as a pharmacist.
It's not wrong to require a worker to carry out the duties of their chosen job. (Soldiers who have discovered that they are now pacifists don't get to argue that they should stay in the army but not have to fight.)
But you have argued that it's morally okay to compel a woman to stay pregnant when she wants to have an abortion: so I don't think you can really argue that you think it's wrong to compel behavior - plainly, you don't.
So, you agree with compelling doctors to tell their patients that they are aborting a living human being? That's quite a turnaround for you.
ReplyDeleteSo, you agree with compelling doctors to tell their patients that they are aborting a living human being?
ReplyDeleteI thought you didn't want to discuss abortion with me any more? That was why I avoided touching on this issue in my first comment. Changed your mind, or just bring it up in order to avoid discussing the issue of pharmacists refusing to do their jobs?
If you want to discuss abortion, the real issue is, of course, not when a fetus becomes a human being - on which I have no opinion, and have never expressed one - but whether you consider women to be human beings or just incubators.
If a law requires a doctor to say to a woman before the doctor can terminate her pregnancy "You know you are asking me to abort a living human being" then I think it's a stupid law. What is the point of it supposed to be?
I thought you didn't want to discuss abortion with me any more? That was why I avoided touching on this issue in my first comment. Changed your mind, or just bring it up in order to avoid discussing the issue of pharmacists refusing to do their jobs?
ReplyDeleteSo, you don't want to discuss abortion by posting on a thread about abortion? That's some logic there.
Forgive me for thinking you would actually post something relevant, like about the post. Not find some point to quibble about.
If you want to discuss abortion, the real issue is, of course, not when a fetus becomes a human being - on which I have no opinion, and have never expressed one - but whether you consider women to be human beings or just incubators.
Comments like this, of course, is why I started moderating the comments. Because the point definitely is not whether a woman is an incubator or not. But you probably think this is a good argument.
If a law requires a doctor to say to a woman before the doctor can terminate her pregnancy "You know you are asking me to abort a living human being" then I think it's a stupid law. What is the point of it supposed to be?
Surely you are smarter than this, although after your heated attempts to explain why it is permissible for some people to comply only with constitutional provisions they agree with, I'm not so sure. Think about it for a minute. Why would you want doctors to tell women that what they are killing is a human being? Could it be that if the woman thought of the--dare I say baby--as a human being that she just might reconsider having the abortion? I'm sure even you can see that there would probably be women who would change their minds about having an abortion if they didn't consider the baby to be a parasite or excess tissue.
Sharon, as that commentator referenced above, I'm happy to answer your questions.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the same commenter would object to doctors being required to state that abortions "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" as well.
Yes, I would object to doctors being required to state that since a) it doesn't have anything to do with the risks of the procedure to the patient, b) it assumes that the average pregnant woman doesn't know what "pregnant" means, and c) it isn't true:
i. the fetus isn't a "whole" anything until birth, and not necessarily then
ii. the fetus clearly isn't separate or we wouldn't be having this discussion
iii. the fetus is only unique if it doesn't happen to have an identical twin in there with it, and I'm guessing that "uniqueness" isn't what makes abortion morally objectionable to you
iv. the fetus isn't legally a human being, it has no recognized human rights
v. it might or might not be living (certainly some number of abortions are specifically performed to extract dead fetuses).
I'm actually strongly opposed to doctors being required to discuss philosophy on their patient's dime, let along being compelled to state non-medical opinions as part of "informed consent".
But such objections do beg the question, if the baby isn't a "human being," then what precisely is he/she?
The word you're searching for is fetus. There are other terms for specific stages of development, but a fetus is what we call the stages that a fertilized egg goes through until birth. You'll find that usage pretty common not only with medical professionals, but also among women who would like to have babies, but have had poor success.
And another question I think naturally follows is this: if a baby born at 23 weeks is a person entitled to life, why is an abortion at 23 weeks merely a woman exercising her "right to choose"? In other words, is personhood merely an accident of location?
Birth is an event, not a location. In humans it usually takes a number of hours and involves the active labor of not only the pregnant woman, but usually a number of other people besides. It is this event, birth, that permits society to confer personhood. In a very similar manner we use another event, death, to take away personhood. In the absence of modern medical technology, these simple definitions have proven workable.
On behalf of those woman who are forced by heartrending circumstances involving massive failures in fetal development to have an abortion at 23 weeks, may I also point out that to refer to that as 'merely a woman exercising her "right to choose"' is callous and cruel. An abortion at five months is not something most women can shrug off. An abortion at five months is likely to represent the loss of a life that was desired, perhaps even actively sought. Many times it represents the removal of a fetus that has already died. Do you think you're helping anyone by blowing off the real and serious and painful decision-making that women go through when they discover that after five months of pregnancy they aren't going to have a baby at the end of it, only a funeral? Would you do that to your best friend when her fourteenth attempt at pregnancy has gone disastrously wrong, just as twelve others did, would you want to be the one who has to read from a script to her that she's trying to ""terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," when in fact she's trying to arrange an abortion because the fetus she was calling Emma has already died?
I like to think your answer would be "no". I like to think you can understand why it might be a horrible thing to be required by law to read this script to a woman, and why doctors and other medical professionals who might not ever choose an abortion for themselves are likewise opposed. Just as many people are opposed to the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban, a legal manuevor that will not save the life of a single fetus, but will almost certainly result in the deaths of women.
Do you think, then, that women make appointments to see doctors at clinics that provide abortions without ever having thought about what they're doing? I doubt it: I think women do think and care about what they're doing.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a good thing for a person who has questions or doubts about a medical procedure to receive neutral, factual information, and counselling/emotional support. The counselling should be appropriate to her needs and supportive of her decision, whatever that decision is. Requiring a doctor to use specific words to a patient in a counselling session in order to influence her decision one way or another would be professionally absolutely wrong. It's the woman's decision to make: it's a counsellor's responsibility to help her make the decision that is right for her. That's what being pro-choice is all about.
I found these two quotes on a Frontline website from women who had had abortions:
"I am grateful for the freedom to make decisions about my own life's fate, whatever the consequences are. They are mine to make, and that is what is fundamentally at risk - taking away peoples fundamental rights to choose what they want for their life."
"I am extremely pro-choice. I have a 5 year old son, and I have also had an abortion. Luckly I was 28 when I had to make that decision. It wasn't an easy decision. I prayed, talked with my friends, and realized that it was the best decision for me. I have no emotional problems stemming from that decision, but I also received wonderful support and counseling from the people at the clinic. They talked with me to make sure this was the right decision for me. I have since volunteered for them and can tell you that they often turn away girls and women who are not sure of what they want to do. They don't force women into something that will cause them more emotional harm then they have already had to deal with."
You don't think doctors try to influence behavior when you consult with them?
ReplyDeleteAnd the law is clear: it is perfectly acceptable for the state to "take sides" in the abortion debate. Typically, they are on the side of life.
And I can find many, many quotes from women saying they regret having abortions. But, really, I already pulled quotes from women who were so effin' happy they had had abortions, remember?
BTW, you are still avoiding the point of the post: what about the women who had abortions based on faulty prenatal tests?
Kaethe,
ReplyDeleteFirst, be more concise and less wordy. I almost deleted this post because it is too long as a comment on another person's blog. If you want to write a lengthy piece, you probably should use your own space to do so. Having said that, I'll now answer what you wrote:
Yes, I would object to doctors being required to state that since a) it doesn't have anything to do with the risks of the procedure to the patient, b) it assumes that the average pregnant woman doesn't know what "pregnant" means, and c) it isn't true:
You have to do a whole lot of tap-dancing to come to your conclusion, but it is a tap-dance we've come to recognize as the "pro-abortion rumba." But this is what it comes down to: if the baby isn't a human being, what is he/she? This is the lie to your argument. Whether you think of the baby as a person or not (a legal question to which you gave a legalistic answer), he/she is most certainly a human being for he/she can be nothing else. Not a dog or a monkey or a ficus tree. The DNA determines that he/she is a human being. I suspect that's the part you really disagree with.
I'm actually strongly opposed to doctors being required to discuss philosophy on their patient's dime, let along being compelled to state non-medical opinions as part of "informed consent".
It is not surprising at all that a person that would argue that a baby isn't a human being would be opposed to informed consent. At least Planned Parenthood uses money as a motivation.
The word you're searching for is fetus.
Actually, the word I use is "baby."
Birth is an event, not a location.
But it isn't the action of birth that changes a baby's sentence from death to life. It is his/her location either within or outside of his/her mother. If the 23-week old is inside his/her mother, then he is still subject to whatever she chooses to do to him/her. But once the child is born, the mother can't kill him/her, at least without facing a lot of criminal charges.
On behalf of those woman who are forced by heartrending circumstances involving massive failures in fetal development to have an abortion at 23 weeks, may I also point out that to refer to that as 'merely a woman exercising her "right to choose"' is callous and cruel.
Kaethe, you are coming to the discussion a bit late. I guess you didn't read the many, many posts from women who celebrated their abortions and castigated me as "anti-woman" for thinking abortion was, in fact, not something to celebrate but something to mourn. And how is saying a woman having an abortion at 23-weeks is "exercising her right to choose" callous and cruel? I'm simply using the phraseology of the pro-choice movement.
An abortion at five months is not something most women can shrug off.
No, no, no. I've been told multiple times now that it is only a 20-minute procedure, not something to be upset about. You really need to go read the other posts and comments. The Pandagonistas were quite clear: abortion is no big deal.
Do you think you're helping anyone by blowing off the real and serious and painful decision-making that women go through when they discover that after five months of pregnancy they aren't going to have a baby at the end of it, only a funeral?
Kaethe, I'm not the one blowing off the pain and heartache of abortion. You need to direct this at jesurgislac and all the commenters who told me how awful I was for thinking abortion was wrong and terrible. I think abortion is always a terrible thing. And BTW, the circumstances you describe happen only in 3% or less of the abortions performed in the U.S. The speech is directed more at the women who don't want to have the child because it might interfere in her education and whatnot.
BTW, you are still avoiding the point of the post: what about the women who had abortions based on faulty prenatal tests?
ReplyDeleteOh, sorry, I didn't realise you wanted me to answer that point. I thought my feelings would be obvious, as you know I'm pro-choice. Women who decide to continue or abort a pregnancy should be able to do so on the basis of full and accurate information. I have heard of one instance where two women were given the wrong information - the names on test results got switched, and one woman who had a Downs syndrome fetus was told it was normal, the other was told her fetus had Downs syndrome. The woman who was told she had a Downs syndrome fetus aborted - the mistake was only discovered afterwards. I thought it was one of the most tragic things I had ever heard of - I still get a shudder when I think of her feelings: and it was not good that the other woman wasn't informed until too late, should she have decided to abort had she received the proper information in time.
Both women were - by accident, I hope - lied to, and at least one of them made a decision that she would not have made had she not been lied to. This is wholly wrong: both of them should have been given the correct information, so that they could make the decision that was right for them.
And the law is clear: it is perfectly acceptable for the state to "take sides" in the abortion debate. Typically, they are on the side of life.
So I should hope. The woman's life: she's the one who's got a life.
I've been told multiple times now that it is only a 20-minute procedure, not something to be upset about.
Where have you been told that an abortion at 5 months is a 20-minue procedure, and who told you you shouldn't be upset about it? All the comments you unmoderated (and all comments at Pandagon) referenced early abortions with regard to their being short and un-upsetting, and were clear that each woman was speaking from her own experience, and certainly not requiring that you should not be upset when you had to have an abortion.
I find it interesting that you are having to work so hard to just say what should be obvious: abortion is a tragic event. No matter what the circumstances surrounding it, it is always a tragic event.
ReplyDeleteI present information showing that women have made their "choices" based on faulty information, and instead of simply saying, "This is terrible. What a horrible thing for those women to have to live with," you launch into a long, rambling story to try to justify your viewpoint.
Neither woman in your story was lied to. They were victims of a mistake. Unless, of course, you think there was some deliberate attempt to give them the wrong information (I'd love to hear that theory).
Again, you deceitfully try to distinguish between an abortion done at five months versus an abortion done at three. But regardless of the risks involved, they both end the same, tragic way. That's why I quote the woman who callously said that it wasn't a big deal, just a 20-minute procedure. I don't have to justify statements like that. That's something your side has to live with.
BTW, you might want to go look up Planned Parenthood v. Casey. When they use the term "life," they aren't just talking about women's lives. But you already know that. It must be really hard having to lie so much.
Jes,
ReplyDeleteI understand your frustration that you don't have unfettered access to my blog to say whatever the hell you want. But when you start maligning the motivations of people, I have to draw the line.
I've never maligned the interests of pro-choice supporters, nor have I needed to. Like with the original quotes from Pandagonistas, their motivations are clear: it is all about them. There's no need to guess as to what their motivations are because they are quite open about it.
The problem is that you want to mischaracterize both the motivations of pro-abortion people and pro-lifers. It's the only way your arguments stand up.
Sharon, since you clearly can't comprehend anything I'm writing, I'll be happy to stay away.
ReplyDeleteKaethe,
ReplyDeleteI have no problem comprehending you. Agreeing with? That's another story.
Yep, telling other people what to do about their kids never ends pretty.
ReplyDelete