On the October 11 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that it "is never the case" that a "mother's life is in danger" during the course of a pregnancy. In fact, there are several potential pregnancy complications that can threaten the life of a pregnant woman. For instance, an ectopic pregnancy, which the Mayo Clinic estimates occurs in "[a]bout one in every 40 to 100 pregnancies," is a condition in which the zygote, a fertilized egg, attaches itself outside of the uterus and "may destroy important maternal structures" with the potential to cause "life-threatening blood loss." According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), ectopic pregnancies "are the leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester." Additionally, other potential pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia, which can cause HELLP syndrome and eclampsia, can also threaten the life of a pregnant woman.This intentional blindness terrifies me because the so-called pro-life laws with their narrow exceptions for life-saving measures can end up killing women.
Some doctors will be afraid that if the woman lives after a medically-prescribed abortion that they will not have sufficient proof that an abortion actually saved the woman's life. So rather than risking their freedom they will wait and see for too long or they will do everythng possible not to treat women with high risk pregnancies and refer them to someone willing to take the risks.
I'm also disturbed by men who take leadership positions on this issue since it will never be their lives on the line. The lives they are risking will always be someone else's. But the lives of girls and women are not pawns in some political or religious game.
When this belief is combined with attitudes which deny most rapes and call domestic abuse a private matter and hold women responsible for men's sexual behavior, the result is that women are useful but replaceable. Lose one and nothing important is lost.
The story would be different if the anti-abortion legislation made it illegal for men to have unprotected* sex with women without the man having received the level of counseling often given to women considering abortions and without the woman's written legal consent (notarized of course) stating that she is willing to carry a pregnancy to term with this particular man.
The counseling could be given by clinics which advertise themselves as escort services for men. Lure them in with the idea of unprotected sex and then isolate them so the anti-abortion message gets through loud and clear. When they leave they will understand that men who have unprotected* sex are the leading cause of murder.
If a man's DNA is found inside a woman who hasn't signed a parental consent decree (Mommy To-Be decree), this anti-abortion law could make it an automatic felony.
None of this "he said, she said" issues would exist to muddy the case of attempted illegal fathering in the first degree. The sperm of product of the sperm would be the only evidence needed.
If the woman got pregnant, the criminal justice system could require the biological father to post a baby bond (large enough to cover the father's legal obligations for 18 years) before he'd be let out of jail. If the woman didn't get pregnant then the man could sign a plea deal in exchange for a vasectemy.
This fits perfectly into the worldview of those who think women have no right to be considered equal to men and have no right to choose an abortion. If we aren't equal, then men should have the greater legal responsibility for letting their sperm come in contact with a girl's or woman's eggs.
Since all pregnancies are to be carried to term, all girls and women should have free health care and free healthy meals and housing subsidies until they are certified as being beyond child bearing years. This would prevent the needless deaths of thousands of babies.
This system would surely reduce not only the number of abortions, it would reduce premarital sex and rape as well. I'm surprised nobody in the right-to-life movement has proposed laws like these.
Without the sperm no girl or woman can have an abortion.
Simple. Effective. Safe.
What law-abiding person would vote against laws like these?
Of course using this logic, the biological father would be charged with murder if the woman he got pregnant died from the pregnancy or complications of the pregnancy. Without the man's sperm she'd still be alive so he's criminally liable for her death -- unless he can prove in criminal court that he was raped.
* unprotected sex is defined as using any method which isn't 100% effective at preventing the creation of a fertilized egg and which can be ethically dispensed by all those in the medical profession.
Technorati tags: rape crime politics sexual violence sexual assault abortion rights