New abortion legislation is backward


Recently, a slew of pro-life and anti-abortion policies have been making substantial gains at the state level. Earlier this month, Kansas signed into law a measure that bans the most common form of second trimester abortion procedures, and Oklahoma followed closely behind with a measure approved by its state senate by a vote of 37-4. Arkansas leads the anti-abortion trend with six new anti-abortion laws this year alone, and Indiana’s feticide law continues to produce rulings mired in controversy, causing pro-choice supporters to bite their lips in panic as their essential viewpoints on human rights are dwarfed in the political realm.

As a landmark ruling and point of pride for pro-choice activists, Roe v. Wade officially legalized a woman’s decision to have an abortion in 1973 and limited state regulation to the third trimester of pregnancy. Despite the black-and-white ruling, plenty of states have found loopholes to oppose the law and make abortion infeasible and inaccessible for women who want to terminate their pregnancies. For example, Kansas’ and Oklahoma’s recent second-trimester abortion restrictions villainize the safest abortion procedure for women in their second trimester by labeling the use of forceps, clamps, knives or similar instruments to remove the fetus from the womb “dismemberment abortion.” The second safest method, which is abortion via induced labor, implies greater health risks for women due to the higher rates of uterine rupture, hemorrhaging and longer induction time. No matter how many anti-choice measures are passed, it does not change the fact that women sometimes choose to abort their pregnancies. It becomes a major issue when state legislatures pass policies that limit the ways in which women can safely pursue an abortion and instead put women at risk when they are forced to endure more dangerous procedures.

Opponents to the new measures, such as Planned Parenthood, have criticized the laws’ use of and non-medical language to “to insert politics into personal medical decisions.” By presenting the dilation and extraction (D&E) abortion procedure as a gruesome practice that desecrates a living fetus, supporters of the policy have merely focused on the graphic details of the operation to appeal to conservative policymakers. In reality, most abortions occur during the first trimester of pregnancy, and the number of D&E abortions adds up to around 5 percent of the estimated total count in Oklahoma. Women who do choose to have second trimester abortions are usually younger, less educated, afraid and have recently experienced hardships or disruptive events. Women who decide to get second trimester abortions need all the options they can get and can’t afford to be blocked from procedures like dilation and evacuation.

It is true that the surgical process of dilation and extraction is the same as many types of medical procedures. Politicians should leave it to the physicians to perform surgeries and advise women on their medical decisions. Interference by politicians is undoubtedly a damaging blow for women, considering that D&E abortions are the most compassionate toward the women involved and warrant the lowest costs of all second trimester abortion methods. Compared to the partial birth abortion ban of 2003, which pertained to a procedure that involves partially delivering a live fetus with the intention of terminating it, D&E abortions are much less morally questionable and relevant to more women. To quell anti-choice concerns about operating on a live fetus, physicians can inject a fetal heart with heart-stopping medication using a needle guided by an ultrasound, and, most scientists agree that fetal pain is unlikely to be present before 27 weeks into the pregnancy.

According to pro-choice supporters, the second trimester ban is vulnerable to lawsuits because it renders abortions inaccessible before the fetus can survive outside of the womb with assistance, which is during the third trimester. Oklahoma’s and Kansas’ new laws are blatantly taking an underhanded route to get around Roe v. Wade and limiting the ways in which already struggling women can handle unplanned pregnancies and receive medical assistance. When the government begins to set up barriers and essentially force women to remain pregnant, a problem of basic human rights emerges as the ability of individuals to make their own medical decisions is impeded upon.

Contrary to the concerns of anti-choice supporters, these new laws do nothing to promote pregnancy and safe sex. Instead, they create a platform for a nationwide effort to criminalize abortion and the women who have already made a difficult decision under the pretense of protecting fetal life.

1 reply
  1. Liberty Minded
    Liberty Minded says:

    The moment you ask taxpayers to pick up the tab, you have injected politics into an issue. If medical freedom with privacy is the goal, one cannot expect someone else to pick up the tab. It is only by limiting the involvement of taxpayer dollars that we can restore privacy and freedom to health care.

Comments are closed.