The United States is not a democracy. We're a union. And that has implications for how abortion would be legislated in a post-Roe world.
An Axios newsletter I receive in my inbox each day had an interesting item Sunday morning: a CBS News poll, conducted prior to the leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion, showing that a strong majority of Americans, over 60%, believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases. A Pew Research Center poll taken earlier this year reports similar numbers.
If, as many people believe, the draft opinion was leaked to put pressure on justices to change their vote, these polls would seem to support that strategy. Two-thirds of Americans don't want abortion to go away.
To be sure, many pro-life activists are skeptical of the importance and accuracy of these top-line numbers: they claim that, when pollsters ask more in-depth questions about abortion, they discover that people are uncomfortable with some of what is legal today. The Huffington Post, analyzing results from the same Pew Research poll, reports somewhat more nuanced views:
A majority of Americans ― 56% ― say how long a woman has been pregnant should be a factor in deciding whether abortion is legal. At six weeks, 51% say abortion should be legal, while 26% say it shouldn’t be and 19% say it depends. At 14 weeks, roughly the end of the first trimester of a pregnancy, 41% say abortion should be legal, while 33% say it should be illegal and 22% say it depends.
After the point of viability, when a fetus could survive outside the womb, support for legal abortion drops: Just 29% say abortion should be legal at 24 weeks, while 48% say it should be illegal, and 18% say it depends...
There’s also broad support for abortion rights in specific instances: 73% of Americans say abortion should be legal when the pregnancy threatens a women’s life or health, including 62% of Republicans. Similarly, 69% say abortion should be legal if the pregnancy is a result of rape, including 56% of Republicans.
The situation is slightly more complicated if the baby is likely to be born with severe disabilities or health problems: 53% say it should be legal, while 19% say it should be illegal. There’s a much bigger split between the nation’s two major political parties on the issue: 68% of Democrats say it should be legal, while just 38% of Republicans say the same...
Americans do see significant differences between abortion’s morality and legality: 46% of Americans say abortion is morally wrong in most or all instances, while 52% say it’s either not a moral issue or is acceptable in most or all instances. But nearly half of the country ― 48% ― believes abortion should be legal in some situations where they feel it would be morally wrong.
While these various numbers and splits are interesting, it's difficult to translate them directly to policies. That is because the connection between popular opinion, laws and policies are, at best, indirect.
It took me a long time to understand that abolishing Roe v Wade case law wouldn't thereby make abortion illegal all over the United States. Instead, legally the country would return to the status quo ante, in which each state creates and enforces its own abortion laws. Prior to the Roe v Wade decision, abortion was legal in some circumstances in some states, and was being debated in other states. The 1973 Supreme Court decision pre-empted those state-by-state battles, and imposed broad national uniformity on abortion laws.
State laws haven't been encased in amber since 1973; a number of states, anticipating that the day may soon be approaching when Roe v Wade no longer will be the controlling legal authority, have put in place "trigger laws" that will take effect when Roe v Wade ceases to be in force. In some states, abortion will continue to be widely available; in others, it will become greatly restricted.
National abortion popularity polls aren't directly applicable to abortion policy because, in a post-Roe world, abortion's legality won't be decided on a national basis*. Instead, each state will address the question of abortion individually. We will no longer have a national abortion policy. We will have 50+ individual abortion policies.
It's worth recalling that this state-by-state variability is by design; it's how our founders created the United States. Even in the very early years, when we consisted of only 13 states, there was a great deal of variability across the United States, with slavery legal in some states and illegal in others, and many other regional differences.
We are not a direct democracy. Properly speaking, in some respects we are not even a single republic. We are united because, originally, 13 individual states (all of which had their historical origins as separate colonies of European powers) separately agreed to unite. Subsequently, as the continent was settled, that union of states agreed to admit other territories as states to the same binding compact. Each state today has its own republican (legislative + executive) form of government. We are a union of 50 republics (plus the District of Columbia and some other possessions). If we need a single word to describe the political structure of the United States, it's "union".
Progressives often are frustrated that California (population 40 million) has the same Senate representation - two senators - as Wyoming (population 600,000). But that also is by design. Each republic - each individual state - gets the same representation in the Senate. In the original binding compact, this Senate arrangement was set up to prevent the more populous states from tyrannously dominating the smaller, less popular states. That same logic holds true today. (Nevertheless, people who believe our country should be governed by population-proportionate representation may still rejoice, because the founders instituted that arrangement, too: it's called the House of Representatives. California has 53 representatives in the House, to Wyoming's one.)
In the event the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this year, each republic - each state - will need to figure out its own policies. Those Pew Research Center numbers reported above point to some of the possibilities for future state-level legislation. As noted, some states will rush to make abortion illegal in most or even all cases. But in a post-Roe world, that legislation will have to withstand the scrutiny of the people in state-level elections. If abortion is as popular as these top-level polling results indicate, then legislators who enact restrictive laws will have to defend to the voters their support for what may turn out to be unpopular legislation. The same calculus will apply in blue states which enact extremely permissive laws.
If Roe v Wade should be overturned, then in the quarter century, the United States may achieve some broad consistency in state-level abortion laws, even without a controlling federal mandate like Roe v Wade case law. What might that landscape look like? Opinion polls suggest it might consist of abortion being legal during the first trimester or so, with bans or more restrictions on later-term abortions - perhaps abortions being permitted for pregnancies that threaten the life or health of the mother, or pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. If that turns out to be the case, then the net decrease in abortions in the post-Roe world may be small. A decrease may even be difficult to measure, given that abortions have been declining for years now even under the Roe legal regime.
* GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who could be Senate Majority Leader again by 2023, unleashed a bit of a firestorm this weekend when he stated that a national abortion ban is "possible" - and that "it's pretty clear where Senate Republicans stand". But without a Supreme Court decision in place, the federal government could enact a nationwide ban only if Congress passes legislation and the president signs it. President Biden presumably would veto such legislation, but it's vanishingly unlikely that it would ever reach his desk as long as the Senate filibuster remains in place. Thus, it seems likely that the filibuster, which has been progressives' most-hated Senate rule in recent years, could again become their most-loved rule in the event the GOP recaptures the Senate.
Even in the event that Congress managed to pass such a ban and the president signed it into law, it would certainly become a court case. Whether federal courts would uphold a federal ban will depend in great part on what the Supreme Court decides in the Dobbs case.
As you said, "State laws haven't been encased in amber since 1973..." The toothpaste isn't going to go back in the tube neatly for things to be status quo ante. There are some things going on in various states now which ought to concern both those who are in favor of getting rid of Roe and those who want to keep it in place. An example is the Texas legislation which makes it possible for a private citizen to bring civil suit against someone who who has an abortion or a provider where it is outside of very narrow parameters; so-called "bounty hunter" legislation Another concerning thing are the attacks on medical confidentiality which make it possible that a woman who has experienced a miscarriage would have to prove that it wasn't an induced abortion. And how would one prove that? Another concerning thing is some "trigger" legislation which would make it illegal for a resident of a state with restrictive laws to cross state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion in another state. It is reminiscent of totalitarian states who restrict the freedomvof their own citizens to come and go as they please. States right are great until they're not.
ReplyDeleteAt least one state is considering legislation that would allow a person in that abortion-restrictive state to sue a provider in a blue state which provided an abortion to a (different) citizen of the red state. And now I read an item this morning that a blue state - I think it is Connecticut - is considering legislation that would allow a person sued under those red state laws to countersue. That tit-for-tat action presumably would act as a deterrent to suit-happy red staters, and may be an effective counterweight. But in my view, both types of laws, the red-state and blue-state varieties, should concern us. It strikes me as an assault on the spirit that underlies the full-faith-and-credit tradition in the United States.
DeleteIf Roe is overruled, both sides will have the ability to make their best case to each state's voters and legislators - to change hearts and minds by persuasion. That's how the United States is supposed to work. Pro-life activists should welcome that opportunity. But I think we're right to worry that some Americans come up woefully short in commitment to our American civics principles.
“States rights” were the reason the southern states broke away from the United States - in order to preserve slavery in their states. After the Civil War, the “states rights” battle cry was also used to enact the Jim Crow laws. The southern states used “states rights” in order to enforce segregation and deny equal rights to African Americans. If our country is truly to be what it claims to be - UNITED States - then some rights must be uniform throughout the entire country. Although at this point, I actually wish there were an easy, practical and non- violent way for the blue states to become one country and the red states to become a different country.
DeleteKatherine, as you note, the similarities between what is being proposed in some states and totalitarianism is chilling. And it’s certain that minority women who seek ER care because of a miscarriage will be investigated and prosecuted for illegal abortions at a significantly higher rate than will white women who experience spontaneous abort.
Just a comment, take this for what it's worth, as I'm not really a big consumer of broadcast media news: in the week or so since the leak, I've seen extensive news coverage of pro-choice demonstrations, and have seen/listened to some in-depth interviews with abortion providers on what overturning Roe would mean for American women. My primary broadcast media sources during this past week have been ABC, PBS and NPR. I consider all three of them mainstream, reliable sources, with somewhat of a tilt to the left (in NPR's case, a more pronounced tilt than the other two, but Chicago's local outlet may be an outlier in that respect). I don't think I've seen/heard a single interview with a pro-life advocate. (As I mentioned elsewhere, presumably I'd see a good deal more of this if I consumed right-wing media).
ReplyDeleteI assume part of this seemingly unequal distribution of air time is the implicit bias of broadcast news editors, reporters and producers: I assume they are overwhelmingly pro-choice. But my larger point is: the pro-choice advocacy industry is putting on a full-court press right now, and the pro-life advocacy industry isn't. If the polls I cited in the post showed abortion support among Americans in the low to mid 60% range, my guess is, in the last week, it's probably moved higher.
Pro-choice advocacy can move the needle on election results. Cf the explosion of feminist events and coverage after Trump's election in 2016, and then recall what happened in House and Senate elections in 2018. Many Republicans believe they are going to shellack Democrats this fall, I think they shouldn't be asleep on guard duty.
I pray that the GOP fails to get a majority. But I strongly fear that it will. The GOP states have been just as busy enacting voter suppression laws as it has been enacting anti- abortion laws to ensure their future victories. It will be just one more step towards the conversion of our country to an extremist, right-wing, Hungarian style pseudo democracy. Authoritarianism will rule.
ReplyDeleteI have been aware of the push from the right to emphasizing that the US is a republic, not a democracy, for years. I’m guessing from Jim’s post that there is now a further push to assert that we are not one republic but 50+ separate republics. Echoes of the declarations of the states who joined the Confederacy. Interesting development of doctrine there. Some background on the conservative emphasis on “ republic” v democracy.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/conservatives-want-a-republic-to-protect-privileges.html
I imagine that if the GOP holds Congress and the WH after 2024, they may decide that it’s ok to have federal laws again instead of states rights, at least in those areas where they seek to deny rights - gay marriage, interracial marriage, abortion, including some forms of contraception, womens’ rights and gay rights in general, genuine freedom of religion, genuine freedom of speech (Fox has been America’s Pravda since 2017 anyway), everywhere in the country. The principle of separation of church and state will fall, with conservative christian beliefs being imposed on all by the federal government. Christian schools will be subsidized by taxpayers, there will be Christian prayers in schools again, the increase in anti-Jewish and anti- Muslim sentiments and associated violence that has occurred since trump was elected will continue to escalate. Winning the Roe v Wade fight, and having a majority of right wing activists on the SC for decades to come will energize the right wingers, hastening the death of what America was once supposed to stand for.
"I imagine that if the GOP holds Congress and the WH after 2024, they may decide that it’s ok to have federal laws again"
DeletePerhaps - and it's quite likely that many Democrats will discover a newfound fondness for federalism.
"I have been aware of the push from the right to emphasizing that the US is a republic, not a democracy, for years. I’m guessing from Jim’s post that there is now a further push to assert that we are not one republic but 50+ separate republics. Echoes of the declarations of the states who joined the Confederacy. Interesting development of doctrine there."
DeleteNo, that's not what I wrote; I wrote that we are a union of 50+ separate states and similar entities. I wrote this: "If we need a single word to describe the political structure of the United States, it's "union"."
I trust that's clear. The key feature is not "state's rights". It's "union". Our country has to live within the tension of unity and diversity, because we're united. (Or should be; I am not the one who just called for splitting off into two countries between red and blue states.)
You may note that, in the entirety of that lengthy post, I didn't use the term "state's rights" a single time. That's because I'm aware that term has taken on a certain toxic meaning, especially among progressives, and especially especially among progressives who have scant respect for the nature of the Constitutional structure of the United States.
Whatever the valence of the term, states really do have rights under the US Constitution. Prior to Roe v Wade, individual states set their own abortion policies. If Roe v Wade is overturned, individual states will again set their own abortion policies. The same is true for many other areas of civil life and criminal law, from drivers licenses to sales taxes to felonies. If you insist on referring to these things as "state's rights", I guess I can't stop you, but the Constitutional feature that reserves some responsibilities to the states, so that an overweening federal government doesn't impose an unjust uniformity, is called federalism.
The original theory of what you call State's Rights, which goes back to Calhoun in the pre-Civil War days, was called Nullification. Nullification also is contrary to our Constitutional order. Just as states have certain rights and responsibilities, the federal government also has certain rights and responsibilities (those that are enumerated in the Constitution). The US has to live within that tension of the division of responsibility between the federal government and state governments.
Nullification erred by seeking to grant to the states more rights than the Constitution calls for. We also can err at the other end of the spectrum, by granting the federal government more rights than the Constitution calls for. Roe v Wade is an example of that.
Roe v Wade represented an imposition of ideology by a virtually unaccountable judicial elite. It represented federal overreach. It invented something, a woman's Constitutional right to an abortion, which plainly is not in the Constitution. Even it abortion is politically popular, Roe v Wade is based on a lie. It is past time to right that wrong.
Unfortunately the federal laws that the GOP would impose would be to limit some rights of all Americans, and specific rights of various minority groups. The Dems have usually sought to expand civil rights of different kinds to cover all Americans, including minority groups, because of the clear actions of some states to deny equal rights to all in the absence of federal laws. So even if the Democrats try to use the states rights weapon that the GOP has used, they won’t be able to. The conversion to an authoritarian government will have been accomplished. I suspect you think I’m paranoid. But the handwriting is on the wall, just as it was in 2020 when it was clear that trump would work to overthrow the election results if he lost. Just as it was clear in 2016 before his election that he would represent the danger to our nation of authoritarian rule - this ambition wasn’t hidden at all. Jim, you were in denial about the dangers of an attempted legal coup as well as the authoritarian bent of the MAGA party, I assume because you rely on conservative sources almost exclusively for news and analysis - National Review etc. I never watch TV news so will take your word for how you see the reporting on mainstream media. Perhaps it’s as one sided as you say. I read, and I know that both the left-leaning WaPo and NYT have had home page opinion pieces from anti- abortion people. I also read the newsletters of several conservatives, including David French. However, I refuse to watch Fox, or read the extreme right- wing websites. Ad revenue I’d driven by the numbers of clicks and I don’t even want to add one more click to those sites. Yes- the mm has more stuff from the pro- choice folk than from the anti- abortion people, but both sets of views are presented.
DeleteJim this is what you wrote immediately before deciding that the word “union” is the best descriptor
DeleteWe are not a democracy. Properly speaking, in many respects we are not even a single republic. Instead, we are a union of 50 republics (plus the District of Columbia and some other possessions).
Right now you are defending the breakup of that “ union” into separate “ republics” in order to limit abortions in as many “ republics “ as possible. It seems that you seek a union only when that will advance your cause.
Jim, there are lots of rights in our country now that are not the explicitly defined in the constitution. Women did not have the right to vote, nor did anyone other than white, male landowners. Are you going to nullify all of them?
Yes Anne, you get full credit for predicting that Trump was fully as bad as he subsequently turned out to be re: the stolen-election claim. I thought you were being paranoid, and I was wrong.
DeleteI hope you're being Cassandra regarding conservative overreach on abortion laws. But I'll bear in mind that you have a disconcerting tendency to be right :-)
No Anne, I'm not "breaking up" anything. I'm simply describing what *is*, and what will be, if Roe is overturned: each state will have the power to set its own abortion policy.
DeleteRegarding voting rights: the 15th amendment expressly prohibits denying voting rights on the basis of race. And the 19th amendment prohibits women from being denied the voting franchise. These rights are baked into the Constitution. I don't want to change either one, and I'm pretty sure none of the Supreme Court justices do, either.
There is no text or amendment in the constitution guaranteeing a woman the right to an abortion. Let's hope and pray that the misbegotten decisions which dishonestly claimed there is such a right will soon be overturned.
I have seen fairly even-handed coverage of possible post Roe scenarios in the state media here in Michigan. The Boy's kindergarten teacher from Catholic school now heads up Right to Life Michigan, so I suppose my ears perk up whenever I hear her on the local NPR affililiate.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that when laws on any issue vary wildly from state to state, it sows division. Slavery is the most extreme example, but I don't think slavery-abortion comparisons are helpful. Unrestricted legal abortion in one state and abortion as criminal homicide subject to prison terms imposed in another strikes me as one such scenario.
Yes, we are a union, but we are united by common values expressed in an amendable constitution. States are not their own little republics that can take constitutional law as a collection of suggestions.
I would prefer that the high court hand down a decision outlining where the balance between maternal and fetal rights lies in the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Jim is correct that most Americans do not favor restrictions on first trimester abortions, but they do favor some restrictions past that point. However, the court is not supposed to rule by public opinion, but on its interpretation of the law. In overturning Roe, it must make a compelling case for why Roe was unconstitutional.
Overturning previous rulings, though certainly that should always be a corrective available to the justices, have the potential for great social destabilization. I suppose that's why the court after Roe allowed states to impose such a wide variety of restrictions on abortion rights. Sweeping it away entirely will be a whole different deal.
Fwiw, we might look at Prohibition as an analogy to Roe. Prohibition didn't stop anybody from drinking. But it fostered organized crime, a lot of death and damage, and increased law enforcement spending. I expect overturning Roe will have a similar effect.
DeleteProhibition attempted to impose a uniform national morality on an unwilling country. It's not a perfect analogy to the situation regarding abortion. If, as McConnell sort of suggested this past weekend, the GOP was to enact a federal ban on abortions, that would be a pretty good parallel with Prohibition.
DeleteIn these post-Prohibition times, alcohol is neither banned nor mandated. But just as we tax and regulate alcohol sale and consumption with a variety of laws and regulations, including at the state and local level, the same can be done with abortion.
Yah, I get what you're saying about Prohibition not being a perfect analogy.
DeleteBut, for me, the overarching concern is that Roe challenges did set up a framework within which states could restrict abortion. Abortion rates went down under these restrictions. Later term abortions became very rare. Agencies devoted to voluntary adoption began to flourish. Attitudes toward single mothers and safety nets became more supportive. At least that's the situation here in Michigan.
IMO, throwing all that out in favor of imprisoning women and medical staff, as would happen in Michigan, is a bad idea and will usher in new evils.
Agree with you Jean. It’s a bad idea and will definitely usher in new evils.
Delete"throwing all that out in favor of imprisoning women and medical staff"
DeleteI'm more than a little shocked that imprisoning women is being seriously considered. Is that a real thing in Michigan?
Medical staff is a different category, in my view. If states create laws specifying when abortion is and isn't legal, then in my view, medical staff who disobey those laws should suffer the penalties. Especially if they are chronic offenders. This might be analogous to drug laws which punish the pusher more severely than the consumer.
That's what the 1931 law allows. AG says she would not prosecute, but that's really up to county prosecutors. Her Republican opponent wants to close the "preserve the life of the mother" loophole.
DeleteThere will be lenient and severe prosecutors/judges in states like Michigan, and abortion will likely be an issue in races down the line in post Roe world.
I'm pretty sure there will always be "some guy in Detroit or Saginaw" like we heard about in the pre-Roe days offering illegal abortions. Usually it was a doctor whose license was terminated for malpractice who demanded $100 and a boink to do the procedure.
I'm sorry these realities are a shock to you, Jim.
I'm sure the medical personnel will be happy to have another gotcha hanging over their heads. They are quite the happy lot, as it is. I never saw so many overstressed people young and old who absolutely hate their jobs.
DeleteOFF TOPIC: The Detroit Zoo can't find one of its baby kangaroos. Prayers to Ss Anthony and Francis.
ReplyDeleteYeah, prayers to St. Anthony, and St. Francis. Hope they looked in his mother's pocket!
DeleteFrom the Detroit News: "Officials are leaning toward the 5-month-old wallaby being taken by a predator from outside the park. "There are native predators that live here, like owls and hawks," he said. "And we can't overlook the possibility that an owl or a hawk took the joey. It may be that is the case and we'll never find the joey.""
DeleteI hope that this is a predator thing and not the zoo returning to the bad old days of mismanagement.
DeleteNews briefs from Medpage Today
ReplyDeleteIdaho joined Missouri and Louisiana in contemplating additional restrictions on contraception, such as emergency contraception and intrauterine devices. (Idaho Statesman)
Not to be outdone, an Arizona Republican candidate for Senate suggested that perhaps all birth control, including condoms, should be banned as well. (Business Insider)
Ironically, today (May 9) is the day the FDA approved the first commercially available birth control pill, mestranol/norethynodrel (Enovid), back in 1960. (History)
In Michigan, an old law on the books from the 1930s would make abortion a felony if Roe v. Wade is overturned. (NPR)
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) weighed in on the idea of a national abortion ban if Roe v. Wade is overturned, calling it "possible." (The Hill)
I guess the winners are on the roll. Time to strike while the SCOTUS is hot.
DeletePlan B and IUDs are viewed by some as abortifacients that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Manufacturers dispute these claims. I don't have the creds to say one way or another.
DeleteMy sense is that some politicians are sending up trial balloons with these deliberations to gauge public opinion in their districts.
Not surprisingly, there seems to be a pretty marked divide between northern and southern states, and between the coasts and midsection of the country.
"I guess the winners are on the roll." Stanley, maybe they should remember a law of physics, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Watch out for the recoil.
DeleteJean, I think you had a good point awhile back that what they really need to address is what rights a fetus has. I think one thing that would have broader support is restrictions after the ability to feel pain.
"My sense is that some politicians are sending up trial balloons"
DeleteYes. And/or fundraise.
"Idaho joined Missouri and Louisiana in contemplating additional restrictions on contraception, such as emergency contraception and intrauterine devices. (Idaho Statesman)"
DeleteNot a lawyer, but there are some federal regulations (e.g. as part of Obamacare) that may come into play here. States may not have carte blanche to say which methods of contraception can be permitted and which can't.
Yah, fetal rights as an issue has been very controversial. But most abortion restriction laws are essentially an attempt to grapple with it.
Delete"...most abortion restriction laws are essentially an attempt to grapple with it." That's what the pro-choice movement fails to see or understand; that it isn't all about controlling women and their bodies. Though that is part of it for some people.
DeleteYes, Katherine, I agree. There are some individuals on both sides who get so adamant that you have to wonder if they've been traumatized by something.
Delete"... there are some federal regulations (e.g. as part of Obamacare) that may come into play here. States may not have carte blanche to say which methods of contraception can be permitted and which can't."
DeleteInteresting point. The state and federal judges and some of the nuttier members of Congress are gonna be busy beavers if Roe goes down! Lots of lawsuits to establish new precedents and new boundaries!
Before you put up a house, you lay down the foundation. The foundation for a low or no abortion country is a medicare for all system. That does not exist. The laws may become anti-abortion but the economic and health care systems are pro-abortion.
ReplyDeleteBTW, does anyone know when the actual ruling is coming out or is it "it'll be ready when we're ready"?
I hear June. Not sure if the leak throws that off.
DeleteI think changing attitudes about single mothers and safety nets help. Probably Plan B has prevented a lot of abortions, though some states restrict who gets it, and there is a lot of argument over whether it is an abortifacient. I am guessing there will be challenges about Plan B to determine that in state courts should Roe go down, and that pharmacies will stop selling it if they think they could be sued or attract unwanted publicity.
Thé GOP is hinting - threatening? - to pass legislation to ban all abortions nationally. With the Congress’ composition as it is, and with so many GOP states, it’s obvious that an amendment to make the right to abortion permanent wouldn’t have a chance even though the majority of Americans support it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to see is the court revising the original opinion to keep abortion legal up to 12 weeks. After that, abortion would be limited to saving the life of the mother. The fetus isn’t fully formed until then - the end of the first trimester is when the brain and neurological system are finally formed. BTW, there is no heartbeat at 6 weeks, as pro-lifers often assert. The heart hasn’t been formed yet. At 6 weeks the process of heart formation begins, and an electrical signal associated with heart formation can usually be detected, but abortion at 6 weeks does not “stop a beating heart”. The link is to just one article I have read about this. There are many.
https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html
There is no answer to when a fetus becomes a person. Yes - the single cell fertilized ovum is human dna and in that sense is human “life” - a cell that is detectable as being a human cell. It is an important cell because it has the potential to become a human being. But it is not a human being - yet. It is not a person. It is not a baby - just potentiality, not actuality. Most fertilized ova do not implant, so conception is not even detected. Some argue that real pregnancy doesn’t begin until a successful implantation occurs, and cell differentiation begins. But the extremists want to ban IUDs which interfere with implantation. They claim, but can’t prove, that some birth control pills interfere with implantation also. Birth control pills suppress ovulation, not implantation. After implantation another 25% of embryos abort spontaneously. The aborted embryos from “miscarriages”are not treated by the church the same way it treats fully developed fetuses, or “babies” who die before or during birth.
If a forensics lab obtained a patch of skin from under my fingernails from someone who assaulted me they would know it was human, and with good detective work, might link the bit of skin to a specific human being. But those human cells are not a human being. Yet they also, like the zygote, have the potential to become a human being - if cloning human beings ever happens. Will cloned human beings have souls? If so, will the soul be a clone of the soul of the person whose cells were used in the cloning process?
In his theology, Aquinas decided that the embryo or fetus doesn’t become a human being until ensoulment. (it’s an embryo until 9 weeks About 80% of abortions in this country are performed by 8 weeks, and more than 99% by 12 weeks. By week 13 all systems have developed, but must continue to develop for many more weeks before the fetus would be viable). Aquinas decided that ensoulment, and so personhood, occurred at the time of “quickening.” Of course, the notion of ensoulment presents other challenges. At fertilization, there is only one egg, one cell. But, that egg can split into two, or three or more. So if the soul is there at the moment of fertilization, does the soul split into two, or three or more? What about conjoined twins? They share part of their body, sometimes even a brain. Obviously they are two separate persons. What makes them separate persons if physically they can’t be separated and still live? The souls?
continued in next comment
"What I would like to see is the court revising the original opinion to keep abortion legal up to 12 weeks. "
DeleteThat may be similar to what Roberts is advocating for (or so various pundits speculate), but if the leak is indicative of the majority's thinking, it seems that won't happen via a Supreme Court decision.
But if the actual decision is what has been leaked, individual states could establish what you're proposing. I suggested as much in the original post. But I don't think that sort of a compromise would come about immediately. In the wake of the decision (if that is what is decided), the political currents will pull the two sides to their respective extremes. So abortion will be extremely available in some states, and others will compete to see who can make it the most extremely unavailable.
continued
ReplyDeleteThe arguments of the anti-abortion movement are rooted in religious belief, not science, as is so often claimed. A zygote is a human cell or two, but it is not a human being. Not all human cells are human beings. But the zygote does have the potential to become a human being. The US is a religiously pluralistic country. I hate that even one woman feels so desperate at becoming pregnant that she seeks abortion, but it is wrong for her to be denied the choice because of the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans. I strongly fear the efforts among the right-wing christians, including right-wing Catholics, to tear down the wall between church and state, to be able to use laws and taxpayer money to impose their beliefs on all via the legislatures and Congress. I fear the possible outcomes of creating a “christian” theocracy. From reading about what is happening in some state legislatures right now, and what some GOP politicians are saying right now, I don’t think my fears about where a complete overthrow of Roe could lead are overblown. Be careful what you wish for, Jim.