Pro-life or Pro-choice. But who is Pro-child?

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?