George Bernard Shaw
observed the Americans and the British were two peoples divided by a common
language. While there is much common ground between the two nations, there are
issues where we are poles apart. Americans’ attitude to guns, for example, as
exemplified by the NRA, is anathema to us Brits.
Abortion is another
topic where there is a gulf of disagreement. In England, abortion is legal during the first 24 weeks of
pregnancy. If there is a substantial risk to the woman's life or foetal
abnormalities, there is no time limit on the procedure. There is also no age
limit for treatment. It is a matter for the woman to choose.
There
is a wide choice of abortion clinics available for pregnant women. In England,
abortion has not been a ‘hot’ issue since 1967. A few years ago our politicians
reconsidered whether the 24 week period should be reduced but no change was believed
to be necessary. When it comes to elections or appointment of judges, abortion
is not even on the English radar.
In America, clearly things
are very different. Since the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v Wade, where
the Pro-choice case succeeded, there have been numerous attempts, both
federally and by the states who believe they have obligations to the unborn
child, to limit a woman’s right to choose. Inroads have been made by the
Pro-lifers over the years. Not long ago there was fear among Pro-choicers that
Roe v Wade might be revisited and overruled but the pendulum has swung away.
Last week, the US
Supreme Court struck down one of the harshest abortion restrictions in the
country. The 5-3 ruling immediately prevented Texas from enforcing a law that
would have closed all but nine of the state’s abortion clinics. The court also
barred the Texas legislature from passing health measures, backed by dubious
medical evidence, as a way of forcing large numbers of abortion clinics to
close.
The ruling will pave
the way to overturn dozens of measures in other states that restrict access to
abortion clinics. Indeed, Pro-choice observers believe the ruling may be the
most significant legal victory for reproductive rights advocates since the
right to abortion was established in 1973.
The kernel of the
issue was a two-decade old dispute over how strictly states can regulate
abortion, so long as they claim to be doing so for health purposes. The Texas case
began in 2013, when Republicans passed a severe set of abortion restrictions.
The bill, known as House Bill 2, required abortion providers to have staff
privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic and clinics had to meet
expensive, hospital-like building and equipment standards. Lawmakers claimed
these were critical safety measures but abortion providers argued that HB 2 was
just a ploy designed to shut down clinics in large numbers.
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee,
praised the ruling. “This fight isn’t over,” she tweeted. “The next president
has to protect women’s health.” Her presumptive opponent let some of his
supporters down. Despite having assuring evangelicals that he would appoint
anti-abortion judges and that he cared deeply about the anti-abortion cause, Donald
Trump stayed silent. Republican Conservatives made their displeasure known, skewering
Trump for his silence.
Leon Wolf, the managing editor at RedState.com,
a Conservative blog and news source, mocked the real estate mogul: “Yesterday,
the Supreme Court issued a decision propping up the abortion industry in
America and giving it special rights against regulation and Donald Trump,
supposed champion of the unborn, said nothing. ... Can the leader lead or must
he be led on this issue? If he must be led on an issue about which he is
supposedly committed, I would submit he really is not that committed to the
cause.”
At the end of the
week, Trump broke his silence. Trump, who boasts of much support among
Christian evangelical voters, said the decision would not have come down the
way it did if he had been president. "Now if we had Scalia ... or if
Scalia was replaced by me, you wouldn't have had that. Okay? It would've been
the opposite." Cannot Trump count to nine? Justice Kennedy voted with the Court's
liberals so, contrary to Trump's mathematics, the decision would have fallen 5
to 4 against Texas had Scalia been alive.
Trump
has been his usual objectionable self. For him, it’s all about Trump. The issue
in the Texas case has nothing to do with Trump. It is partly about a woman’s
right to access abortion clinics, partly about the right to choose what she
does with her body and partly about asserting that evangelical ideology plays
no part in assessing such rights.
Too
often the abortion debate in America is about ideology, religion and abuse of
women. I accept it is a matter for a pregnant woman to decide the fate of her
unborn baby. If legislators believe differently and want to impose restrictive
laws, those same legislators should accept the consequences of their law. If a
state forces a woman to give birth, the state must accept the obligation of Pro-child
and take responsibility, at least in part, for the child’s welfare and
education up to the age of adulthood. If a state is obliged to accept this quid
pro quo, I wonder how keen it would be to pass anti-abortion laws?
No comments:
Post a Comment