Here are a few thoughts in response to Dennis Gregory’s piece. As a starter, Texas’s governor didn’t pass the law; the legislature did — i.e., the people’s representatives. If their constituents don’t like it, some of the representatives that voted for it may not get re-elected; or the legislature may change the law.
My problem with Roe v. Wade is that abortion is a complicated issue with a number of factors that might reasonably be considered. Such issues should be decided by the people, through their representatives, not by a 5-4 majority of unelected judges. Court decisions also add a layer of confusion, as they address the specifics of a particular case. They don’t lay out a clear pattern of what’s legal and what’s not, that would normally be included in legislation. And there is no provision in the Constitution that requires abortion to be a constitutional right.
I think we all agree that women have a right to protect their bodies. That’s why rape is deemed a serious crime — regardless of the degree of assault or battery. But pregnancy involves two other people that are ignored in the arguments made by abortion rights advocates. At some point, we have to accept responsibility for the choices we make, and except in the case of rape (or incest), the event triggering the pregnancy was consensual. First, should the child in utero be entitled to protection some time before birth? Here there’s a wide division of opinion — from those opposing abortion from conception to those okay with it just prior to birth. Should abortion be limited at some point to serious health issues, whether of the mother or the child? Most people agree that abortion should be legal in some circumstances — definitely in cases of rape or serious health issues. Most agree that abortion shouldn’t be legal at the end of a pregnancy, except where a mother’s or child’s life is at risk. Who should draw the line in between the two extremes? The Supreme Court? Or the people’s representatives?
Second, what about the father’s rights? Should he have a right to demand an abortion? If the child is born, he’ll be stuck with paying child support for years. He may have thought the mother was on birth control or out of cycle. If the pregnancy was not the product of a serious relationship, he almost certainly didn’t intend to produce a child, and the long-term consequences of doing so could adversely affect his present or future relationships and his reputation, as well as his finances. Maybe in rare cases, he wants the child, even though the mother doesn’t. He’s willing to cover the medical care costs and take sole responsibility for the child after its birth, maybe even pay the mother for the burden and pain she will bear. Should he be able to veto the abortion?
These are all complicated issues. And complicated issues should be resolved by the people’s representatives — not by a divided, unelected court.
Robert Hastings is a resident of Waimea.