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
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
Comments