Essay: It’s Time to Change the Abortion Discussion

Essay: It’s Time to Change the Abortion Discussion – New laws by Republican legislatures is making it clear that our national discourse is all wrong.

-Christopher Carroll

Marking just the latest episode in a line of Republican legislation meant to target abortion, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a new, heavily restrictive, abortion bill into law on Friday.  This new legislation, and the spate of Republican abortion legislation nationwide, is doing damage to the rights and health of women while compromising the relationship between patient and doctor.  Legislators and our national discussion is focusing on the symptoms of a problem, rather than addressing the causes.

The bill, which goes into effect today, forces women to undergo an ultrasound before getting an abortion and requires any doctor who administers abortions to have admission privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic.This will likely result in the closure of both the Planned Parenthood Appelton clinic and the Affiliated Medical Services Milwaukee clinic due to an inability to satisfy the admission privileges requirement of the law.

Ultrasound A 12 weeks 3 days 001 (Photo credit: Amanda’s Adventures)

The Wisconsin bill was signed with very little fanfare or publicity, seemingly buried by Gov. Walker within 17 other signed measures he signed on a long 4th of July weekend. This attempt to avoid press scrutiny and public repercussions reflects the volatility of the subject and the political danger it presents.

Nationwide, the GOP has felt that pushing anti-abortion, or “pro-life,” legislation at the state level is the best way to address the issue post Roe v. Wade, and given the Supreme Court’s recent treatment of “letter of the law” legislation and the emphasis placed on State power and sovereignty, they are likely correct.

***

Arkansas and Alabama have both recently seen new abortion legislation blocked by federal judges while the constitutionality of the laws is litigated. The Arkansas bill, the most restrictive in the nation when it was passed in May, banned most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy and the Alabama law, which was signed by Gov. Bentley in April, requires that that physicians providing abortive procedures have admitting privileges in a local hospital.

In North Dakota, Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed abortion legislation in April that bans the procedure after 6 weeks of pregnancy, (before many women know they are pregnant) making the state the most restrictive in the country.

While Wisconsin, Arkansas, Alabama and North Dakota have newly signed laws in place, the issue is being debated in the public eye in State Houses and newsrooms across the country.

New national scrutiny has been focused on Texas and Gov. Rick Perry following Senator Wendy Davis’ marathon filibuster to stop Texas House Bill 2, a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, require that they be performed at ambulatory surgical centers and mandate that providers have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Currently, only 5 of 30 clinics in Texas would pass these requirements.

***

The GOP is pushing these laws, all of which pass in exceptionally strong GOP states, under the pretext of helping women. The ultrasound requirement in Wisconsin is meant to improve “a woman’s ability to make an informed choice that will protect her physical and mental health now and in the future,” said Tom Evenson, a spokesman for Gov. Walker. Meanwhile the “admitting privileges” requirements are meant to make the procedure safer, and, as Gov. Bentley explains, provide “appropriate standards of care.” Both of these concerns are valid and compelling, but the methods and goals of the GOP are questionable.

Roe v Wade (Photo credit: Chris Wieland)

Women, and men, should have a strong understanding of the risks and repercussions of every medical decision, abortions included. However, this is not the job of the government, Gov. Walker, Republicans, or politicians in any state or community; it is the job of the patient and doctor. Dictating what procedures should be done, regardless of whether or not a trained physician deems them necessary, is an extreme example of government oversight. It is a short step from compelling ultrasounds to compelling more permanent medical procedures.

The safety of patients, on the other hand, is a concern of society and government. Both State and Federal governments mandate countless safety requirements in all aspects of our lives, from food regulation and water sanitation, to housing requirements, transportation standards and health care. The Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit NGO, released a report in 2012 claiming that 42,000 women die in the “developing world” each year as a result of unsafe abortions. These deaths are preventable and are a result of poor treatment and, most importantly, an absence of medical options and help. While the United States is not a developing country, the point is well taken: when people don’t have access to medical care, they resort to unsafe and unregulated means of treatment.

Userpage icon for pro-choice (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The legislation that is repeatedly pushed by Republican governors, senators and congressmen, in effect, exacerbates the problem. Their legislation, while laboring under the pretext of making abortions safer, will make abortion services unavailable to thousands of women across the country. The void that this type of legislation leaves in it’s wake is at best misguided and at worst irresponsible.

The legality of abortion is an immensely complicated issue, invoking passion, anger and misunderstanding in those on both sides of the debate. The issue encompasses debate over contraceptives, poverty, health, social equality, sexual equality, age requirements and morals. In the end, nobody likes abortion and nobody wants children to be aborted. Nobody wants a mother to be put in the position where she must choose between a potential life of a child and her own well being. But public debate has been backwards.

Society has become obsessed with the act of aborting, rather than the factors that lead to it becoming necessary.  Instead, lets address why pregnancies are being aborted. Let’s address the education of our children and young adults. Let’s address the destructive repercussions of social inequality and economic polarity. Let’s address the childcare and parenting practices in our country. Our society should be about social activism, not social restriction. Our society should be one in which a woman’s life includes the ability to access safe abortion when faced with the unenviable and incredibly difficult decision to prevent the creation of a new life. Governor Walker and his cohorts should have no place in these decisions and our society shouldn’t let them.

Caution: The Shrewd Form of Judicial Activism

Caution: The Shrewd Form of Judicial Activism

-Christopher Carroll

The highest profile Supreme Court decisions of the year are fast approaching. Decisions on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 are due next week.

At this moment, the justices are contemplating, discussing and debating such questions as standing, ripeness and merit of both cases, which is to say nothing of the issues of application of the 14^th amen

Rally for Marriage Equality (Photo credit: vpickering)

dment, equality, state sovereignty and judicial precedence implicated by these issues. At the same time, those justices inclined to rush progress forward must consider the best interests of the nation and the same-sex marriage movement. Hopefully they will realize that addressing these two cases with caution and restraint will be an extremely shrewd decision.

The justices certainly are aware of the effect that the holdings, dicta and dissents written in their hallowed chambers will have on society. They certainly are aware that they can have both a minor or major impact on the direction of society and speed of change in the country. But caution must be taken. On the one hand, if they get too far in front of the public on the immensely important and difficult issue of marriage equality, they could cause cultural and societal strife and backlash, thus crippling the natural progress witnessed in America of the past 50 years. Yet, on the other hand, if they stay too far behind, they may slow down or even stop the country’s steady march toward equality.

Though Justices are supposed to divorce public opinion and custom from judicial review, on particularly important cases they must find a way to bear cultural practice, tradition and habit in mind, even if through disguised means.

Courts around the world must at times consider the public opinion, practice and culture. In South Africa, the Supreme Court has had to be very careful in examining laws and cases that bring common law and cultural standards and tradition into conflict. The famously important Supreme Court in India has taken Public Interest Litigation further than any other in an attempted to bring equality to all social and economic levels of Indian society, especially when cultural norms have prevented progress. Here in the U.S., justices have realized that an activist court can be both a boon for the country (see the Warren court decisions) and a danger.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has suggested that the 1973 Roe v. Wade case was mistimed. “Its not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast,” explained Justice Ginsburg at a Columbia Law School symposium in 2012. The speed Justice Ginsburg alluded to likely led to the incessant and acrid debate over abortion that has followed. Perhaps, Ginsburg would argue, her predecessors could have found a way to encourage progress on the issue while not going so far as to declare abortion constitutional across the entire country, regardless of whether or not the public was ready for it culturally. Perhaps, had they found the correct balance between progress and cultural practice, the country would have been spared the infighting Roe v. Wade has spawned in the decades that have followed and perhaps abortion would not still be such a divisive issue.

English: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Nobody can say for sure what would have happened court acted more cautiously in 1973. However, all signs seem to suggest that abortion was going to become an accepted part of American society. Indeed, by the time the court had taken the case, society was already well on its way to adopting it. If Justice Ginsburg is correct, the courts involvement was as detrimental as it was beneficial, and we have paid the price for the courts inability to show restraint.

Today, marriage equality is following a similar path. The gay and lesbian community is slowly becoming an accepted, if not yet always welcomed, part of society. Gay marriage is quickly Marriage equality is becoming increasingly accepted in the United States, evidenced by the growing number of states (as of now 12 states plus the District of Columbia) that have embraced same-sex marriage. Though some portions of the country seem to be lagging behind others, the issue seems to be making slow yet steady progress. It seems that Marriage Equality will become a part of America with or without the courts help. Justice Ginsburg’s caution may well be right on point. The Court can help this immensely important issue move forward, and it could hurt it irreparably.

The Justices must decide how involved they want to be in American society. The fact that Supreme Court justices are unelected is an obvious strength for American democracy and for the Court as an institution. However, it simultaneously makes the Court vulnerable to questions of legitimacy when it wades through public policy.

Forcing cultural change on others is always a difficult task and usually results in resentment and anger if not outright rejection and conflict. The United States Supreme Court, unlike the courts of India and South Africa, must approach judicial activism with extreme caution in matters as fragile and contentious as marriage equality and abortion.

The American Judicial system has tradition of its own, and breaking from it in too substantial a way and too suddenly, would only serve to de-legitimize the Court and set marriage equality backwards, perhaps crippling it for good. Our country must embrace our gay brothers, sisters, friends, parents and neighbors and we must ensure that every person is treated with the same dignity and respect regardless of their sex, race, or whom they love.

Caution must be observed. Conservative, rather than unrestrainedly exuberant and progressive, action must be taken. Change must be slow and steady. Only then will it win the race.