Speaking Tuesday via telephone from Kansas, President Bush assured protesters of Roe vs. Wade gathered outside the Capitol in Washington, DC, that "we will prevail" in a cause that insists "that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient."
Sunday was the 33rd anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, which made abortion legal in all 50 states, and tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female justice.
Supporters of choice gathered in the Capitol on Sunday and have urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Alito's nomination.
States Restrict Access
In many states, access to abortion is severely limited; for example, in 2000, 98 percent of North Dakota counties had no medical provider with abortion services, including the metropolitan areas of Bismarck and Grand Forks.
The Indiana state legislature is poised to debate House Bill 1096, which would restrict access to abortion to all women unless "continuing the pregnancy would put the woman's life or physical health in danger of ''substantial permanent impairment'." At least three states have similar bills pending: Georgia, Ohio and Tennessee.
Republican Representative Troy Woodruff, serving his first term in the Legislature, wrote House Bill 1096 knowing that it would conflict with Roe v. Wade. That was precisely his point: He wants his ban appealed to the Supreme Court, in hopes that the justices will overturn Roe and give states the power to make abortion a crime. ''On an issue that's this personal, it should be decided as local as possible," Woodruff said. ''We either want these procedures, or we don't. . . . And I don't."
And Missouri has extended parental notification for minors to abortions obtained in another state. Illinois does not require parental notification, so teens from Missouri could visit a clinic across the state line in order to get an abortion without telling parents. "But the new Missouri law that makes it possible to sue anyone who provides an abortion to a Missouri resident under age 18 without written consent of a parent has [the clinic] demanding proof of age of all prospective patients."
Where Are The Doctors?
A second-year medical student at the University of Washington writes for the Seattle PI, noting the irony about required education in contraception versus Viagra:
Article comments
1 - Nathaniel Winn
While I won't argue the merits of either "side" (assuming a simplistic two-sides to this story), I must take issue to your terminology. Using this chart I made for reference:
There's a lot of disagreement even over semantics. But since "choice" in this context refers to choosing abortion (and recognizing that it is a misrepresentation of your position to say you are "pro-abortion") I propose using the terms in the line I've labeled ACCURATE.Why? I feel that the conversation loses the vagary of the amorphous "choice", while acknowledging that the opposition to abortion is seeking to limit/eliminate access to abortion. The discussion becomes whether it is or isn't "right" that folks have the right to deliberately terminate their pregnancies.
Which is something folks will never agree on. I just propose that folks who argue with each other are least having the same argument.
2 - Andy Marsh
I looked up the hippocratic oath on wikipedia and found out that in the original versions of the oath, it specifically says no abortions...it has been revised to deal with current "norms".
I'm not saying that I'm anti-abortion...but that oath thing...could explain why there may be a shortage of doctors that are willing to perform abortions.
3 - Nancy
Another difficulty is that the two sides are arguing two entirely different issues. The anti-abortion people are talking about the morality of terminating a pregnancy, while the pro-choice people are talking about a woman's absolute right to control her own body. Granted, there's a connection, but it's still two separate but equal issues (heard that phrase before, somewhere). In any event, I suspect one reason why there is such horrific difficulty in breaching this divide is that if one party is discussing oranges, and the other is going on about apples, they won't be able to find common ground, or at least it will certainly be harder, especially if most of the arguers don't even recognize that a good deal of the problem does lie with confusion of issues, and aren't aware that neither side is speaking the others' language.
4 - Maurice
Nancy -
your comments are dead on. I have this argument/discussion with my 23 year old daughter all the time. She repeats the mantra "womens right to choose". I keep trying to get her to tell me when life begins. We are not discussing the same issue.
For me the argument revolves around respect for life. My oldest son is severely mentally and physically handicapped. Should he be 'aborted' now? No rational person would say so. His life however useless to some is his and he is entitled to it in its entirety.
At what age do we respect the life in the womb?
5 - Nancy
I wish I knew how to resolve or even define it; I could win the Nobel, doubtless, if I could. One the one hand, it's two issues & two different languages; on the other they're inextricably intertwined - kind of like siamese twins who share one set of legs.
6 - gonzo marx
you want to resolve quite a lot of this?
simplicity itself...allow the "morning after pill" to hit the US market
the FDA stopped it, via an appointee, BEFORE any clinical tests were even done on the drug
why?..possibly because of exactly the Reason that it would virtually eliminate this as an Issue if it was made available as a real "choice" to people to supplement contraceptive measures...
just a Thought
Excelsior!
7 - SonnyD
The pro-lifers say that when the fertilized egg begins dividing, it is a potential human life, even before implantation. The morning after pill prevents implantation, therefore it is abortion and not approved.
8 - gonzo marx
decent point SonnyD...but you missed a Trick here...
without the optimum "target" of a clinic to stand in front of, or to harrass people as they approach
without a tangible and concrete "foe" to hurl invective against...
and by re-instilling PRIVACY for the women involved
you remove the flame from the frying pan, and thus the anger fomr this Issue, and thus one less bullshit non-Issue to be used in dividing the voting Public
one less Distraction from the real problems
nuff said?
Excelsior!
9 - SonnyD
I didn't think ahead far enough on that one. You have a point, Gonzo. I guess they would have to picket the drugstores that sell the pills.
10 - SonnyD
Although, personally, I'm not in favor of abortion except in the most extreme circumstances, I don't feel I have the right to make that decision for anyone else.
It seems that the so-called right to life group, who concentrate mostly on unborn life, are basing their opinions on religious beliefs. At the same time, they manage to pick and choose what parts of their religion they will believe in.
If they believe there is a God who gives life, why do they ignore the teaching that God also gave humans free will. Don't they think it was for the ability to make mistakes and learn and grow in the process? If one group, with one particular brand of belief, is allowed to dictate the laws for everyone then there is no free will. It looks like they are trying to outlaw God's will.
11 - Kathy
Hello, Andy -- and which parts of the first graph of the Hippocratic Oath (original) apply to your life today?
12 - KYS
Comment #8
Gonzo, you make a good point, but this debate reaches our local pharmacies, where anti-choice advocates are starting to refuse to fill birth control and might refuse to stock OTC morning-after pills.
Same battle, new ground.
Ugh.
13 - Andy Marsh
Kathy - I never said the oath applied to me...I was pointing something out in it...I could give two shits if someone doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world!
14 - Kathy
Andy -- I guess I was too subtle. You linked to an "old" version of the hippocartic oath. It begins ... "I swear by Apollo, the Physician ... and I take to witness all the gods ..."
In other words, if one part of the old oath is relevant, why isn't the part about multiple gods?