The phrase “pikuach nefesh” is hallowed in Jewish scriptures and translates literally as “saving a life.” The phrase is used in reference to the most just determining factor in all decisions. To follow a just existence is to uphold human life as the most paramount concern regardless of the actions taken to preserve it. Therefore, saving a life is the most holy and just thing one can do. With President Bush’s signing of the most radical abortion restriction since the revolutionary pro-abortion case, Roe v. Wade in 1973, I have wondered exactly whom these men are trying to protect and if this is what was meant by increasing “homeland security.”
The ban on partial birth abortions is meant to cover a technique used in the termination of a pregnancy during the 18th to 20th week. But the law’s broad phrasing, which would not take the mother’s health into consideration, makes the law ambiguous and potentially dangerous. “Partial birth abortion” is a procedure, according to a survey conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in 2000, a research organization that supports abortion rights, that only occurs in less than one-fifth of 1 percent of abortions.
Even
so, this rare procedure, also known as an intact dilation
and extraction (D & X) done in the 18 to 20 week period,
is highly similar to a more common one beginning in the period
of 12 to 13 weeks. This second procedure, known as dilation
and evacuation (D & E), sometimes passes into the territory
of a “partial birth” abortion and therefore would
be considered illegal. The two overlap in that there is a
chance, during a D & E procedure, that the fetus will
be outside the cervix while it is technically “still
alive.” The proponents of the ban are quick to say that
in the case of D & X, the procedure is done with the “intent”
of killing the fetus during its partial birth (i.e., its passage
past the cervix while “alive”). As the two procedures
are so closely linked by chance occurrences that may make
it impossible for a doctor to determine whether or not the
fetus is still alive before acting, can anyone confidently
ascribe something as intangible as intent?
Similar laws were vetoed by President Clinton and tabled during Bush senior’s presidency (the house was predominantly Democratic at the time) because the laws gave no consideration in the event that the mother’s life is in jeopardy or if the fetus would be born with birth defects. A similar law was also found to be unconstitutional in the state of Nebraska.
According to a statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, such legislation is “inappropriate, ill advised and dangerous.” The statement goes on to state that intact D & X “may be the best and most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances, can make this decision.” Removing the slight chance that it is necessary during any number of complications during a pregnancy, and going as far as to criminalize its use is irresponsible.
| Related articles on the web: |
| CBS
news online BBC news online CNN online |
As of press time, the Justice Department failed in their defence of the law in federal courts in San Francisco, New York City and Lincoln, Nebraska. A Supreme Court decision to uphold the law is unlikely as the current law is similar to the one shot down in Nebraska.
It is fiercely debatable what constitutes as a life during the stages of fetal growth. Some argue it is when the appendages are fully formed; others believe it is when there are indications of brain activity. But between a “life” that has no quantitative consciousness and a mother of any number of years who could possibly die if the pregnancy were to continue, I find it unbelievable that some give more weight to the former.
The fact that a woman’s individual right to her own life and to bring life into the world is a political issue has always been staggering to me. How can a group of people, most of whom are male, make a decision about a female’s uterus without being grossly under-qualified.?Granted, this ban does not overturn Roe v. Wade, but it does make the first crack at its defenses. Bush made it clear even before entering the presidency that his ties were to conservative, predominately “pro-life” backers. As long as he is in power, there is no reason to believe that all forms of abortion are safe. So be sure to look out for “the war on your uterus,” coming to an immediate future near you. Until then, be just, save a life and vote responsibly.