Pre-emptive Striking (The Law on Abortions in America)

Abortion is still legal in the United States. For now.

It's become more and more popular for legislation to be passed by states "banning" abortions after 20 weeks. The root of these bills are largely due to the question of when a fetus begins to feel pain. I recently read a terrible story about a women who began miscarrying a very much wanted pregnancy at 22-weeks in 2010 in Nebraska. A 20-week ban on abortions had recently passed in the state and when the women found out that there was not enough amniotic fluid to ensure that her fetus could live outside of the womb, her and her husband decided they wanted to induce the labor and put an end to the tragedy. Unfortunately, the doctors along with their legal counsel could not comply with the families wishes because of the potential prosecution that could be brought by the state of Nebraska. The women sat there for 10-days (not being deemed "ill enough" to meet any abortion ban exceptions for saving her life) before natural labor began. Upon physically entering the world, after several "gasps for air," their child died. Click here for the entire story.

Bans may be the extreme and abortions after 20-weeks make up less than 2% of procedures performed but that does not mean that they are not to be taken as a warning to us all that any attack on a women's right to choose the fate of her own body can lead to re-criminalizing abortion. As it stands now there are hospitals that have had to risk women's lives in order to protect themselves from prosecution. In the case of Savita Halappanavar, the women who died after Irish Hospital Doctors refused to remove the dying fetus within her while it had a heartbeat- paid with her life.

When talking about abortion legislation there can be some disconnect between laws that push for out right bans and laws that effect access to abortion services on a more subtle level. For instance, mandatory waiting periods (24-72 hour periods after initial appointments that force women to wait for their procedure to be done) are not directly aimed at banning women from services however, they make the process much more difficult. Also, mandatory ultrasound viewing or description laws (when the women is forced to either view or listen to the description of her ultrasound before being allowed to proceed)do not ban abortion but they make the process that much more oppressive and intrusive. Often you hear anti choice lawmakers and activist claim that these laws "protect" women or make abortions "safer" but in truth the goal behind these types of bills and laws are to erode the abortion rights on American women. The federal law states that States may not pass laws causing undue burdens on women who seek legal termination but what constitutes as an "undue burden" is subjective at best.

The point I'm trying to make goes back to the way that Roe v. Wade was decided and subsequent Judgements made by the Supreme Court since. Initially, Roe was decided on the:

"right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

The ruling allows for legal abortions during the entire pregnancy, but set up conditions to allow states to regulate abortion during the second and third trimesters.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) a Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion was ruled invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Other requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations ruled that certain restrictions on abortion access, like waiting periods, were constitutional.

So when anti-choice activists couldn't overturn outright Roe or ban legal abortions the strategy shifted to make obtaining an abortion so difficult that in effect there would be women who sought but could not obtain a legal abortion. Therefore the clause of "undue" burden becomes a week defense against attacks on how far restrictions can be taken.

So called Partial Birth abortions were banned in the early 2000's but that is far too complicated to explain in this post. The Wikipedia Article can give you a better idea about the laws regarding second and third trimester procedures and what they mean for abortion patients and providers.

Restrictions lead to bans. Too often do women find themselves speaking out after the fact. So on one level the detachment of individuals in the political process can provide us with powerful wake up call if and when we become effected directly by the lack of abortion rights but on a deeper level we need to raise the alarm earlier and for everyone.

The level of involvement needs to be severe at the front gate. Any attack on any aspects of the legality of abortion must be met with opposition. The decision to have an abortion needs to be in the hands of each individual women, each and every instance of pregnancy and once that decision is made no one has the right to delay, demoralize or discriminate against that women or that choice. Period.