Whittling Away At Abortion

While national leaders in the abortion debate focus on the upcoming nomination hearings of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court, grass-roots activists have been changing the legal landscape one state at a time. In most cases, the antiabortion forces have prevailed, adding restrictions on when and where women can get contraceptive services and abortions, and how physicians provide them.

Here's an interesting point to consider: If the majority of Americans are actually pro-choice, as NARAL claims and commentators argue, then why are so many of these "anti-choice" efforts so successful? Are that many politicians stupid enough to vote against the majority, or is there no real pro-choice majority? Are we seeing the "Roe Effect" in action?

Locally, Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) has signed legislation that makes a "viable fetus" a distinct victim of a crime such as murder or manslaughter. Virginia did not enact any laws related to abortion.

Cheers for Maryland, although I fail to see how the described law imposes any limitations on the "right" to abortion. Yes, there is an indirect effect of such legislation that strengthens the culture of life, but none of the "unborn victims' rights" laws affect abortion directly.

Boos for the Old Dominion, my home state. Despite being a "red state", we can't get anything done to protect life. Why? Ask Russ Potts. Despite running as a pro-life candidate, Potts has recently been given a 100% approval rating from the Virginia chapter of NARAL, and he uses his powerful committee chairmanship to kill every pro-life bill that comes within his reach. I might comment that my home state's pro-life legislation has been aborted, but that would be too much irony for me....

David Bereit, director of program development for the American Life League, which opposes abortion in all circumstances, supports both the short-term efforts and the long-term strategy aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade.

"People are becoming frustrated more progress hasn't been made at the federal level and feel they don't have as much control to change things there," he said. "If we can't outright ban abortion, what can we do to make it less prevalent? We see it's much easier to take up funding and parental notification measures at the state level."

In the meantime, "we want to have cases working their way up in the eventuality Roe would be overturned," Bereit said.

That sounds like an excellent strategy to me. We can't win the whole victory yet, so let's take whatever gains we can get. Saving some children from abortion is better than saving none.

South Dakota has been among the most active states, passing five new laws, including a "trigger" law that would impose an immediate abortion ban after any Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

Last year, "there was an attempt to engage in a full-frontal assault of Roe versus Wade" with an outright ban, said Brock L. Greenfield, a state senator who is director of South Dakota Right to Life. But similar bills have been found unconstitutional, and Gov. Mike Rounds (R) vetoed the bill on technical grounds.

"This year, the pro-life forces united in order to pass some legislation," Greenfield said. The other measures include stricter parental notification requirements and a provision adding an "unborn child" as a distinct victim to the state's criminal code for charges of murder in the first and second degree. In its new informed-consent law, South Dakota requires physicians to tell women seeking an abortion about the "existing relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child," and that all abortions "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being."

The language in that law was written with the expectation it could be used to "help tear down the wall put up by the Roe versus Wade decision," Greenfield said.

Oh, my. Big cheers for South Dakota! Here's the text of the South Dakota abortion ban; I like it a lot. I especially like the part at the very beginning that says:

The Legislature finds that the State of South Dakota has a compelling and paramount interest in the preservation and protection of all human life and finds that the guarantee of due process of law under the South Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings.

Part of me marvels that this is considered such an extreme position. Don't we establish laws & governments for the express purpose of protecting the weak and/or defenseless members of society?

For those of you who are concerned that banning abortion would imperil women's lives, the South Dakota Legislature has you covered:

No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman is guilty of violating section 6 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.

That seems fair to me. Doctors should try as hard as they can to save both lives. If (and only if) they must choose one life over another, then doctors are allowed to do whatever it takes to save the mother's life. As I've said before, I support the right to abortion in the extremely rare cases where the mother's life is at stake.

Much to his credit, Joe Carter over at The Evangelical Outpost has been blogging about the South Dakota abortion ban for some time now. Kudos to him, and to all other bloggers who have been working to raise the visibility of this amazing effort!

Back to the WaPo article:

For the small and dwindling number of physicians providing abortions, it has been frustrating to encounter new regulations dictating non-medical requirements such as the width of doorways and the size of hallways, said Steven Emmert, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

"Those opposed to abortion are finding new and different ways to increase the roadblocks and the hoops [that] providers and patients have to jump through," Emmert said.

Missouri, for example, has set aside $1 million to encourage low-income pregnant women to carry a pregnancy to full term and potentially give the infant up for adoption.

Could someone tell me why that Missouri law is considered a "roadblock" to legal abortion? Are we really so devoted to Molech that we can't bear for even a single child to escape his grasp?

As an aside, the regulations about hallways and doorways that the article disparages have a very practical purpose: to make sure that paramedics can get access to help women who suffer life-threatening complications from their abortions. Women like Diane Watson, who might have survived her abortion if someone had been willing & able to perform CPR on her. Of course, it would also be helpful if the clinic doctors were willing to make an effort to save women's lives, as they evidently failed to do for Diane....

Not all the restrictive measures came from Republican-controlled states. Democratic governors in Kansas and Pennsylvania signed budgets that steer millions of dollars to organizations that provide alternatives to abortion. And in Oklahoma, Democratic Gov. Brad Henry signed a law in May that requires parental notification for minors, deems a fetus a "victim" under assault laws and mandates that abortion providers give specific counseling relating to the developmental stage of a fetus and a list of groups that support women who choose to carry a pregnancy to full term.

As with the Missouri law, I'm baffled that someone would consider the Kansas and Pennsylvania efforts to promote alternatives to abortion as "restrictive" measures. It's all about "choice", right? Well, let's provide some more choices! Some pro-choicers are concerned that we don't have a safety net to help women cope with unplanned pregnancies, therefore we must continue to offer abortion to these women. Well, let's build the freakin' safety net already!

Also note that, once again, a law that simply recognizes the common-sense fact that murdering a pregnant woman creates two (or more) corpses is labelled a threat to reproductive freedom. Huh?

---

Through all of the fear and panic (and the authors' biases), we can see that there's a lot of reason to be hopeful. While national pro-life organizations are concentrating on the Supreme Court, the states are probing around the edges of Roe to provide as much protection for unborn children as possible. The "pro-life portfolio" has truly been diversified.

We will prevail ... eventually. Meanwhile, let's keep up the good work!
(cross-posted at Naaman the Ex-Leper)