Why Can't We Have an Exemption for the Health of the Mother?

No one who opposes abortion wants to see women's health suffer. Ideally there would be an exemption to the abortion ban if the health of the mother were endangered. Indeed, polls indicate that citizens would prefer such an exemption.

What does "health of the mother" mean though? Remember, common sense has no bearing on the law. When it comes to laws, precedent and past court rulings play a key part in their interpretation.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in "Doe v. Bolton:"

We agree [that] medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

So if a pregnant woman and her doctor decided that she was too young, or that the pregnancy was "emotionally stressful," then an exemption for the health of the mother could be triggered, resulting in an abortion.

If a pregnant women went to her doctor and said that she had been vomiting in the morning because of her pregnancy, the doctor could decide that was affecting the health of the mother and could then perform a legal abortion.

Common sense says that we should protect pregnant women as much as we want to protect the unborn child, and that if the woman's health is truly endangered--not just inconvenienced--she should have the right to chose a course of action that would protect her health.

Legal reality is that if an exemption for the health of the mother exists in the law, doctors could perform just about any abortion they desired, claiming something as simple as "stress" as the justification. If the government tried to uphold the law and prosecute the doctor, they would lose because of the definition of health as defined by the US Supreme Court (quoted above).

The unfortunate fact is that the only way to ensure we protect unborn children is to enact a law like HB 1215.

9/15/2006 5:00 PM -- UPDATE Trackback to the IowaVoice so they know the realities of having exemptions for the health of the mother.

Imposed Morality?

Lawmakers Received Death Threats

Canadian Cynic thinks we're lying about death threats, based solely on a quote found in a blog entry. However, the full report indicates that there were actually death threats received:

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0041272.cfm

South Dakota Abortion-Ban Backers Harassed

CitizenLink: South Dakota Abortion-Ban Backers Harassed

Lawmakers who backed South Dakota's abortion ban now say they're receiving death threats. South Dakota state Rep. Roger Hunt pushed ahead with the bill in spite of nasty opposition in the House. Now he says he and his family are getting harassing phone calls.

Abortion advocates threatening and harassing South Dakota lawmakers is no different, and no better, than pro-life advocates harrassing and threatening abortion doctors. Let's pray that these are just threats, and that nothing substantial comes from this.

Please keep South Dakota lawmakers in your prayers!

South Dakota Leads the Nation?

Jim Fossett writes in South Dakota Leads the Nation?:

Only in America could the outcome of an election in such a small state--South Dakota's population is only about 775,000--have so many moral and political consequences for the rest of the country.

Indeed!

...if such a ban can't pass in an extremely conservative state as South Dakota, it's hard to imagine that it could pass anywhere...

I would like to point out that our Senator Tim Johnson and our Represenative Stephanie Herseth are both Democrats, although yes, overall we are a conservative state compared to much of the nation.

Exemptions for the Health of the Mother

The New Yorker: A Choice in South Dakota:

Before Roe v. Wade, one of the states where it was commonly known that an abortion was easy to obtain was California, which had a model penal-code law that said that in order to get an abortion you had to have been raped or be in medical need owing to health complications. But, according to state law, “health” included mental health. So there were certain psychiatrists who would give a pro-forma sign-off on an abortion.

This is a good explaination of why exemptions for the health of the mother do not protect unborn children. While most people would like to believe that protecting the health of pregnant women is a good thing (which it indeed is), an exemption like this has a history of being a glaring loophole for continued legalized abortions. All a woman would need to do is get a doctor to sign a form saying her health was threatened--which would probably be fairly easy to do at an abortion clinic--and the abortion could continue legally.

I recommend reading the rest of the New Yorker article. It contains a lot of good facts covering both sides of this debate.

Which Side Are We On in the Struggle for Women's Rights

Steven Conn writes in Which Side Are We On in the Struggle for Women's Rights:

Remember that for many, especially on the religious right, abortion and contraception are no different. What they really want is to control the reproductive choices we all make in accordance with their particular ideas.

This is a common argument I keep hearing from abortion advocates, although it puzzles me. I have no idea where they are getting that idea. My wife (who is more pro-life than I am, if that's possible) uses contraception. In fact I don't know anyone--Christian or not--who opposes contraception, and I've never heard it preached against in the pulpit.

I know that the Catholic church is opposed to contraception, although many American Catholics do not agree with that position. Bear in mind that the pro-life camp is not made up entirely of Catholics. I'm not Catholic.

The truth is, I would prefer that women use contraception before getting pregnant, rather than using abortion as a means of contraception after getting pregnant.

Alliance Defense Fund Defends South Dakota Churches

South Dakota War College: Alliance Defense Fund defends the right for South Dakota churches to lobby in support of Referred Law 6 (HB 1215).

...the Alliance Defense Fund is telling churches that they're ok. And the ADF is willing to defend it.

This is great news for South Dakota churches. The pro-abortion advocates have tried to bully churches to stay silent, but we can praise the Lord that this tactic will not work.

The Baby In My Womb Leaped For Joy

The Bible makes it very clear that unborn children in the womb are babies that are capable of emotion (in this case joy):

"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy." (Luke 1:41-44, NIV, emphasis added)

In this passage, the word "baby" is translated from the original Greek word βρέφος, which means "an unborn or a newborn child." A modern definition of βρέφος would be "infant." There is no distinction in this word between the unborn child and the newborn child. In the Bible there are no fetuses, there are only babies--capable of emotion--whether born or unborn.

Taking Pro-Life to the People

MInTheGap comments on the pro-abortion ballot initiative to overturn HB 1215:

This is a terribly risky move– for the pro-abortion group. For one, pro-life seems like it has a lot of support in this state... I don’t thing this was a good tactical move on the pro-abortion side.

I agree 100%.

VoteYesForLife.com

Visit VoteYesForLife.com for the following:

• Link to read the bill HB 1215
• Link to read the SD Task Force Report on abortion
• Volunteer to help in the campaign to uphold HB 1215
• Donate financially to the cause
• Sign up for an e-newsletter to stay informed

S.D. Abortion Ban Center of Divisive Campaign

Kansas City infoZine News: S.D. Abortion Ban Center of Divisive Campaign

Unruh, now 51 and a mother and grandmother, has been haunted by the thoughts of who her unborn child could have become. She vowed to prevent other women from making the same choice she did.

"I was driven by the women that I've worked with over the years - women who were not warned about the dangers of abortion and had a right to have their child," she said.

And now she is the closest she has ever gotten to a full-blown abortion ban in South Dakota - HB1215, which is on the ballot for voters to decide in November.

Unruh is on a mission to spread the word. She is traveling throughout the state in a mobile pregnancy center she calls "the fleet for little feet."

The bus, which she manages, is equipped with a portable sonogram machine, volunteers and educational materials. Unruh holds rallies to spread the message.

"It's a pregnancy care center on wheels," Unruh said. "We have women on board to discuss how to prevent teen pregnancies and sexual integrity. We are about educating women about their choices."

State's abortion fight makes for strange bedfellows

Aberdeen American News: State's abortion fight makes for strange bedfellows

In South Dakota, "if the vote were today, I think they would overturn the law," said David Kranz, longtime political writer for the Argus Leader newspaper in Sioux Falls. "But the pro-life people are much more organized, by a long shot."

Long's Explanation of Repeal Initiative

South Dakota Politics has a link to Attorney General Larry Long's explanation of the initiative to repeal HB 1215.

What about back-alley abortions?

A common argument used in the pro-abortion debate is the "back-alley" abortion. This argument says that laws banning abortions will not actually stop abortions. Instead women will seek out abortions from untrained individuals in unsanitary conditions. Many women will die as a result, and keeping abortions legal will prevent this tragedy.

I agree with this argument. If abortions are made illegal, then yes, some people will get them anyway, and they won't always be done in the most medically sound ways. Sooner or later a pregnant woman will be seriously injured or die as a result.

Does this mean that we should not, therefore, make abortions illegal? No.

We have all sorts of laws in this nation, and all of them are broken. We have laws making it illegal to murder someone. We have laws making it illegal to steal someone's belongings. We have laws making it illegal to drive faster than the posted speed limit. We have many laws, and they are all broken. Many of them are not broken by professional criminals either. For instance, many citizens cheat on their taxes (a crime) and speed when they drive, almost as if it was their god given right to do so.

However no one advocates removing these laws, as they serve a moral code and the public good.

As a pro-life advocate, I do not support legal abortions anymore than I would support the legalized murder of anyone. Some pregnant woman will eventually be desperate enough to get a back-alley abortion, and my heart breaks for that woman. I love women and would never want to see this become a reality. However in my heart I cannot justify the killing of millions of unborn babies each year on the sole premise that it would prevent back-alley abortions. Both are tragedies, but abolishing legal abortions will save the most lives.

I choose to love life... the life of the unborn and the life of the pregnant woman. My hope and prayer is that pregnant women will turn to support agencies for help instead of seeking back-alley abortions, but even if a few eventually do (which is likely at some point) there are many, many, many more women who will not get abortions once they are illegal, and this will preserve and protect the most lives, those of our nation's unborn children.