Today’s ruling upheld Bush’s ban on the D&X (dilation & extraction) abortion procedure. Its language, however, is vague enough to potentially outlaw D&E (dilation and evacuation), the procedure used in 95% of post-first trimester abortions. No exception was provided for the health of women.I hope those who are celebrating today can find it in them to show a little humility and try to understand that there is tragedy and pain in this decision. A real respect for life demands it.
But what does that mean in real-life terms?
One answer comes from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Martha Mendoza, who in 2004 learned that her 19-week-old fetus was dead in her womb. Even then — just months after the ban was first passed -- it was already becoming difficult to find a doctor willing and able to perform a D&E. Martha Mendoza tells of her struggle to find one in her lucid, heart-wrenching Summer 2004 Ms. essay Between a Woman and her Doctor
We can be sure Roger Hunt et al. are working on some legislation for the South Dakota Legislature can put out to make some moral-political points out of this decision, cheap easy moral points. I just wish these politicians had to pay even a small amount of the price to be paid for government interference in medical decisions. If only they could be on such a moral high horse when it comes to values of economic justice, racism, and personal freedom. But hey, that would involve some personal risk. Not gonna happen...
Posts
Hunt et al have only pseudo-moral points.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with Hunt! We have our own fight on reproductive rights up here in ND.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Supremes, there was a great line in a column in yesterday's Mitchell Daily Republic on the Supreme Court ruling which I posted on at DakotaWomen:
May I also remind you of the day President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban into law. The photo op had him surrounded by an all-male chorus line of legislators. These men were proudly governing something they never had: a womb.