Three states have ruled that a Federal law banning late-term abortions is unconstitutional, but SCOTUS has decided they need to look at the case as well. Uh oh. That doesn't bode well.
And Shakes delivers a nice smackdown in response:
The big question, of course, is what is the point of ramming through this legislation [that restricts abortion] without a provision that allows it in cases where the mother’s life it as risk? And the obvious answer is that anti-choicers don’t trust women and their doctors to make that decision honestly—a position which pulls back the curtain on their “pro-life” Emerald City and reveals the contempt for life they actually have, in spite of their claims to the contrary. Only a person who has no respect whatsoever for human life could assume that women would invoke this rationale to terminate a pregnancy for no good reason, that expectant mothers who carry a pregnancy nearly to term would suddenly and randomly change their minds, with as much forethought as one might give to rearranging the living room furniture.
I might suggest that perhaps it's a specific contempt for women's rights and autonomy rather than a lack of respect for life in general, but she could be right. Either way, who cares? The net result is no good at all for women, regardless of the motivation.
Comments (1)
I was thinking about this idea the other day, and it occurred to me that we'll never really know how much a role sexism plays here, since no one worries about whether or not men could be trusted with the decision to abort, since they don't get pregnant. It might just be a mistrust of people in general. Given the world we live in, I doubt that's all that's at play, but still, if you hate people who have abortions, 100% of the people you'll be hating will be women, regardless of your beliefs about gender.
Posted by Sara | February 21, 2006 7:57 PM