Skip to main content

Abortions are never medically necessary?

There are a few things about abortion that I think are simply inarguable. Here's one: Performing an abortion is sometimes necessary for saving the life of a pregnant woman.

I stand corrected! Joe Walsh, a member of the House of Representatives from Illinois, wants to criminally ban abortions "without exception." What about abortions that are required in order to save the life of the pregnant woman? No problem: Rep. Walsh asserted that abortions are never medically necessary due to "modern technology and science."

What? Does anyone besides Rep. Walsh believe this?

Now, resisting an explicit life exception to a general abortion ban is not all that unusual (although still on the extreme end). Pro-life activists make two arguments. First, they think that performing an abortion in order to save a woman's life falls under the criminal defenses of self-defense and/or necessity (i.e., the choice of evils defense). Therefore, a life exception is implicit in any abortion ban. Second, the term "life" is so vague that it will allow many women to obtain abortions that are not life-preserving in the strictest sense.

Walsh does think that exceptions are generally abused, which is not a unusual pro-life claim. But I suspect that other pro-life politicians and activists will decline to defend him, because saying that abortions are never medically necessary is just not supportable.

Links:

Article on the NPR web site (October 19, 2012); includes a statement from ACOG: Life of the mother: never a reason for abortion, Congressman says

Brief article in Politico (October 19, 2012): Rep. Joe Walsh: Abortion never saves mom's life

Article from New York Magazine (October 19 2012) that contains some information from the CDC on deaths due to ectopic pregnancy : Congressman Joe Walsh is the latest Republican to say ridiculous thing about abortion
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The irony of the inquiry into Dr. Halappanavar's death

The Associated Press (via  The Washington Post ) reports that the composition of the panel that is investigating Dr. Savita Halappanavar's death in Ireland has changed: Prime Minister Enda Kenny told lawmakers he hoped the move — barely 24 hours after Ireland unveiled the seven-member panel — would allow the woman’s widower to support the probe into why Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old Indian dentist, died Oct. 28 while hospitalized in Galway.   Kenny’s U-turn came hours after her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said he would refuse to talk to the investigators and would not consent to their viewing his wife’s medical records because three of the Galway hospital’s senior doctors had been appointed as investigators. Kenny said that the three doctors would be replaced by other officials “who have no connection at all with University Hospital Galway. In that sense the investigation will be completely and utterly independent.”   This makes sense. Why conduct an inquiry at all
Post a Comment
Read more

Breast-feeding as an abortifacient?

I came across this citation while reading a William  Saletan column, which, if I can decipher the jargon, indicates that ovulation may still occur during the postpartum breast-feeding stage. Does this suggest that, during this stage, a woman may have a fertilized egg that does not implant due to breast-feeding? This would place breast-feeding as an abortifacient practice in line with other methods of contraceptive unacceptable to pro-lifers. Saletan's earlier column does a nice job of capturing the scientific uncertainty over what happens with eggs and implantation with emergency contraception (like Plan B). 
Post a Comment
Read more