I'm a little confused, now:Abortion was first legalized in 1977. In April 2005, the Iranian Parliament approved a new bill easing the conditions by also allowing abortion in certain cases when the fetus shows signs of disability, and the Council of Guardians accepted the bill in 15 June 2005.
Abortion is currently legal in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and also in cases of fetal abnormalities that makes it not viable after birth (such as anencephaly) or produce difficulties for mother to take care of it after birth, such as major thalassemia or bilateral polycystic kidney disease. There is no need for a consent from the father and request and consent of mother with approval of three specialist physicians and final acceptance by legal medicine center suffices. Legal abortion is allowed only before 19th week of pregnancy.
Much of the controversy has historically stemmed from Iran's status as a theocracy as it was established after the 1979 revolution; many policies, including those concerning social topics, are based on sharia law as interpreted from the Qur'an through the nation's Shi'a legal philosophy. While abortion is not actually referenced in the Qur'an, infanticide is specifically condemned, and this has been used as an argument to keep abortion illegal in most or all cases in which it might be sought. The sections of the Qur'an that detail the importance of health for women have been used to combat this argument, and have been moderately successful at changing the legislation against abortion enacted after 1979. Nowadays, most Islamic legal schools of thought hold that the ensoulment of a fetus takes place four months after conception, which has extended the discussion of abortion in many nations and communities that base their judicial codes off of Islamic law; in Iran, a consensus has recently developed that abortion is legitimate if it is before this four-month mark.
Arguing for the legality or partial legality of abortion has the potential to be successful in Iran only if it is through religious discourse. All religious ruling in Iran has its final approval or veto assigned by the Guardian Council, a reviewing and regulatory body that has the ability to support or strike down all policies of Iran. In October 2021 a bill was proposed that would mandate local laboratories to report positive pregnancy tests in order to prevent "criminal abortions."
I stand corrected, that information is 16 years old.
Here is a better statement of the current state of the law in Iran:
Abortion in Iran is effectively banned, apart from a few exceptions. The new law puts the final decisions on therapeutic abortion – in case of threat to the life of the pregnant woman or foetal anomalies – in the hands of a panel consisting of a judge, medical doctor and forensic doctor, rather than on the pregnant women, supported by the medical doctor.
Which is different from the current state of the law in several states how, exactly? Except the decision is in the hands of randomly selected jurors and a judge in a criminal trial, where the doctor faces imprisonment as well as fines (up to $100,000 in Texas, according to an ad Beto is running currently). Being "like Iran" would actually be an improvement, in some ways.
I'm also confused because I doubt Senator Graham's proposed law would override more restrictive state laws, since that's not a thing in American jurisprudence. The Feds can ban segregation, but I don't think they can align all states with a federal abortion practices bill. At most they cannot allow the law to be any less restrictive, which seems to be what the Senator is going for here (although the Feds are allowing states to legalize marijuana, which is still criminalized under federal law).
By the way, being like the "rest of the world" probably wouldn't suit Senator Graham either:
For the UN experts, the law violates the rights to life and health, the right to non-discrimination and equality, and to freedom of expression by making it illegal to access a range of reproductive health services and share reproductive rights information.
The law also prohibits free distribution of contraceptive goods, and imposes a ban on voluntary sterilizations for men and women, aside from very exceptional cases. The move, said the experts, will disproportionately impact women in situations of marginalization, and victims of sexual violence.
Those provisions track the law in several states, now. Again, how are we not already like Iran? And what will his bill do about that, except override "states rights" with federalism? Is that really what the Senator from South Carolina wants to stand for?
To be fair, the Senator hasn't espoused a position on contraception. That's what Justice Thomas did, in his concurrence on Dobbs. I wonder if the Senator think Justice Thomas wants to align us with the rest of the world.
If the Senator really want to have this debate, let's have this debate:
In the experts’ view, the law will not stop abortions.
They pointed to data illustrating that “criminalizing the termination of pregnancy does not reduce the number of women who resort to abortion”.
“Instead, it forces women to risk their lives by undergoing clandestine and unsafe procedures.”
According to official data an estimated 300,000 to 600,000 illegal abortions are performed in Iran every year.
Under the law, antenatal screening tests will be restricted, and the health ministry will establish a system to collect information on everyone who goes to a health centre for fertility treatment, pregnancy, delivery, and abortion – a move apparently designed to expand the monitoring of pregnancies and discourage abortions.
“Restricting the access of women to free contraception goods and services will lead to unwanted pregnancies and high maternal mortality”, the experts warned.
“We will closely monitor the impact of this law on maternal deaths and ensure accountability for failure to act with due diligence to prevent the death of women and girls with risk pregnancies, or the death of those that undergo unsafe abortions”, they added.
He says there are 55,000 abortions a year in the U.S. Accepting that number arguendo, does he really imagine he's going to reduce that number to zero? Or anything approximating zero? Or even 50%? Doesn't that tell you that, like drinking and smoking (both controlled substances), there's a market demand that is going to be met no matter what? Shouldn't we make it safer, not more dangerous?
But apparently American exceptionalism (MAGA!) means being just like the rest of the world? Including Iran? And why, again, is he doing this?
So you are the conservative party who wants to get between a woman and her doctor, or just a woman and her womb? And that's not "intrusive government" and "government overreach"? Pray tell, why not? You really want to be the pro-Dobbs party, the least popular, most maligned Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott? (And yes, I'm cognizant of Brown v Board, which lead to the "Impeach Earl Warren" movement.)
I don't think this is the electoral Hail Mary Lindsay thinks it is. He's certainly making as coherent an argument as any Trump supporter ever has. And does he really imagine the American electorate has paid attention to a Senate floor debate since Jimmy Stewart filibustered there?
Get real.
Addendum:
Okey-dokey.
