GOP having 'full-blown freak out' after being punished in elections this week: report https://t.co/D2oTJcvmee
— Raw Story (@RawStory) April 6, 2023
Among other things, notes Politico, the firmly right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial board this week called the Wisconsin election a "five-alarm fire" and warned Republicans against embracing blanket, no-exceptions bans on abortion.
"No exceptions" are not the problem. "Exceptions" are no different than "no exceptions."
Texas law currently requires there be a showing that the health of the mother is at risk before an abortion can take place, and in order for it to be legal. That's an "exception." But several women are suing the State of Texas because their health and life were at risk in their pregnancies, but they could not get therapeutic abortions because doctors and hospitals (quite sensibly) couldn't be sure they could establish a risk to maternal life sufficient to exculpate them in a criminal trial.
Do you want to face criminal action 2 years down the road for doing your job? Or would you feel better simply declining to do that part of your job, and probably take the chance that a medical malpractice suit would at least not put you in jail?
The problem is bans on abortion: after 6 weeks or 16 weeks or ever. It's an issue of medical care. It's not a convenient cosmetic surgical procedure women have because "everyone is doing it!"
The arguments against abortion are facile and ignorant. The question is always and ever only one for the mother. Once the child is born even the state can intervene for the safety and health of the child. Before that, any intervention by the state has to take account of the rights and interests of the mother, and the state is far too blunt an instrument to do that. The only valid stance of the state is to stay out of it altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment