THE FINE PRINT. Over at Feministing, Ann helpfully linked to Cynthia Gorney�s old Harper�s article on the politics of the SCOTUS-approved ban against dilation and extraction abortions. The article helps to clarify a few questions asked in comments here and elsewhere about yesterday's decision:
- Yesterday�s Gonzales v. Carhart ruling contains a provision protecting the life of the mother, but not her health. According to Doe v. Bolton, the little-known case decided on the same day as Roe, women�s "health" must be protected under any abortion ban after fetal viability. "Health" was defined as "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient." The Supreme Court eviscerated that precedent yesterday.
- Dilation and Extraction -- re-dubbed "partial-birth abortion" by anti-choicers -- does not equal "late term abortion." It is a procedure by which the fetus is removed intact from the womb instead of in pieces. Why would a doctor and patient choose this procedure? For many women ending a second- or third-trimester desired pregnancy because of a birth defect -- some of which may prohibit a baby from ever living outside of the womb -- holding their fetus is a way to grieve and bring closure to their pregnancies.
- Another benefit of Dilation and Extraction is that it decreases the likelihood of bleeding and pain inside the woman�s uterus and vagina. This is important to many women who plan on having children in the future.
You may also like
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)