Sunday, September 18, 2022

The False Front

"You know, I think that Lindsay's rather desperate right now because for generations the intensity of voting behavior driven by abortion was apocryphal, and demonstrably, on the right," said Wilson. "And the people voting on abortion were almost exclusively on the right. Now what they've done with Dobbs is the dog has caught the car and this is activated women in the electorate — Republican, Democrat, Independent, across the spectrum. It's not that they are raging, Planned Parenthood pro-choice, it's that they don't love people like Lindsey Graham making their decisions for them, especially in cases of rape, and incest of the mother, which is where a lot of these states have already gone, which is even further and more extreme than what Graham is even proposing — which takes a lot."

I’m not arguing with Rick Wilson here, but the choice cannot come down to either this: 

or exceptions for rape or incest. And not just because abortion is often a medical procedure necessitated by the state of the pregnancy (v. “controlling their sexual impulses “). Consider the Texas law as it stands, if it was more “liberal” and allowed the much ballyhooed exceptions (It doesn’t, now. Adding them is not a cure.).

You, the doctor, face fines of up to $100.000, and/or jail. Do you want to rely on the “ She told me she was 16!” defense? You want proof that stands up in court: police reports, etc. “My daddy/uncle/brother did this to me” won’t be enough. Neither will: “I was raped.”

Women who are victims of such crimes seldom report them for a variety of reasons. Incest? Well, it’s usually rape (non-consensual, or underage) for one thing. So it’s a distinction without a difference to distinguish the two. Second, you’re making an accusation you’ll have to prove in court. Maybe you don’t want to do that. Maybe you just want an abortion and therapy (if you can get it), and to get on with your life.

Who are we to judge? But to insist these are reasons to allow abortions puts us in judgment. And, just as importantly, it takes away the agency of the woman. We must choose for her. Not because she is a minor, or deemed incompetent; but because she is a woman, the only one in the species who can get pregnant.  In the name of this unique condition we would deny her agency and replace her judgment with ours.

I don’t think that’s why, as Rick points out, so many women want to vote on this issue. At least not so they can surrender the agency Roe gave them.

Life of the mother, too, leaves too much to a jury of non-doctors deciding who has the better lawyer. Would she really have died? You want to trust 12 strangers to review and critique your work? Bad enough when it’s your peers. How about when it’s 12 random blokes chosen for their ignorance, and given the power to put you in jail?

Perhaps the better alternative is civil fines from suits brought by persons with standing (a tort, in other words). Something doctors can cover with insurance, as they do malpractice (also a tort). After all, if you delay the abortion too long and the mother and fetus die, that’s malpractice. But at least you won’t go to jail for it.

There is a solution to this, and it’s a simple one. Leave it up to the pregnant woman. She’s the one who’s going to make the decision and bear the burdens. She’s also the one who’s going to seek out the proverbial back-alley if she must. We suffered that in the days when we denied women full agency. Lindsay Graham remembers those days (we’re the same age, he and I). He clearly prefers we return to them.

I don’t think many Americans agree with him. I have too much love and respect for my wife and daughter to see those days come back. Just to begin at home, I mean.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)