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

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S
3 comments
Read more

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou
Post a Comment
Read more

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, Pres
Post a Comment
Read more