« Why Abortion is a Moral Issue to a Libertarian | Main | Dean: Do As I Say, Not As I Do »
November 08, 2003
Abortion Hypocrisy with Mental Health Loophole
A woman in the United States has a "right" to an abortion late in the pregnancy by asserting that having the child will harm her health. Usually, this is simply a ruse where the proposed "harm" is to her mental health. But it's the law, as handed down by our betters at the Supreme Court.
The potential harm caused *by* the abortion to the prospective father's mental health is ignored. There are many cases where a father has suffered great grief after an his child was aborted, with or without his consent. However, the father has absolutely no rights at all regarding abortion of his offspring.
Court rulings give no consideration to this issue. In particular, a father cannot prevent an abortion by claiming that it would cause him great suffering or damage his mental health, even as the mother is allowed to have the abortion strictly because she asserts that having the child would result in harm to her mental health.
The relevant case is Doe v. Bolton, which stated that:
"Medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all the factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."
and even worse:
3. The requirement that a physician's decision to perform an abortion must rest upon "his best clinical judgment" of its necessity is not unconstitutionally vague, since that judgment may be made in the light of all the attendant circumstances. United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 71-72. Pp. 191-192 .4. The three procedural conditions in § 26-1202(b) violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 192-200 .
...
(b) The interposition of a hospital committee on abortion, a procedure not applicable as a matter of state criminal law to other surgical situations, is unduly restrictive of the patient's rights, which are already safeguarded by her personal physician. Pp. 195-198 .
(c) Required acquiescence by two copractitioners also has no rational connection with a patient's needs, and unduly infringes on her physician's right to practice. Pp. 198-200.
In other words, one doctor, these days a for-profit mass abortionist, using his "best medical judgement" (which is more likely his best financial judgement), is sufficient to legally terminate any pregnancy at any stage of pregnancy.
This is one aspect of the abortion debate that is almost never mentioned, and yet it exposes the utter hypocrisy, and hence invalidity of current abortion jurisprudence.
Incidently, it is Doe v. Bolton that opened the floodgates to late term abortions. Because of the almost uniform radical pro-choice views of mass media, most Americans are unaware of this decision and believe that abortions after the first trimester are only legal if the mother's life is in danger.
In fact, legal abortions may and do occur in the 9th month simply because the mother desires it. She need merely find a cooperative doctor, whose "best judgement" is that abortion is necessary to protect the mother's "mental health".
Posted by John Moore at November 8, 2003 03:51 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tinyvital.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/325
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Abortion Hypocrisy with Mental Health Loophole:
» Major Linkage from Patriot Paradox
Here are some links to some must reads in the Blogosphere. Maybe someone will eventually notice my little blog on the hill eventually, and send me some hits as well... and maybe I'm a Chinese fighter pilot. Mudville Gazette contemplates... [Read More]
Tracked on November 9, 2003 09:53 AM
Comments
John, I agree that this probably does occur, and as late as the 9th month. However, I believe that it's probably EXTREMELY rare.
The problem comes from writing a law that will prevent this EXTREMELY RARE occurrence without also preventing what may be medically legitimate abortions. Note that the "partial birth" abortion ban won't stop late-term abortions - just one type of them.
I'm uncomfortable with legislators deciding things medical. I'd prefer it if we left those decisions to doctors who (supposedly) practice under the Hippocratic oath rather than legislators who (supposedly) practice under an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
And bear in mind - making it illegal won't stop it. If a woman is that desparate to end a pregnancy late term, risk of jail probably won't stop her.
Posted by: Kevin Baker at November 16, 2003 09:49 PM
Kevin,
9th month pregancy terminations are relatively rare, but they do happen but they aren't the issue I was discussing. I mentioned the 9th month only to point out the how extreme the abortion jurisprudence has become. The rarity of abortions in the 9th month is not the issue - the fact that they are ABSOLUTELY LEGAL UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCFES is. And the fact that the father has no rights is complete and total judicial hypocrisy - the fetus is either a person, who cannot be killed, or the fetus is property. In the latter case the father should have rights that conflict with the mother's rights.
Furthermore, nowhere did my article mention the partial birth abortion ban, which should be a state issue. However, there are between 3000 and 5000 partial birth abortions annually, and the vast majority are performed in the 5th and 6th months on healthy babies of healthy mothers.
Regarding the issue of illegal abortion, or, as you put it: "if a mother is desperate to have an abortion in the 9th month".
Because of the current state of the law, she doesn't have to be desperate. And the abortion can be a mere convenience, or be done to spite a former lover or husband (which is the real point of my post about the legal hypocrisy, which you didn't address). Thus making it illegal (which is impossible because the courts have removed this who area of public dispute from the democratic process creating this absolute "right" out of whole cloth) would probably greatly reduce the number of these abortions. And, in spite of what the press says (and remember how biased they are about guns), the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act still allows the abortion if it is necessary to save the mother's life.
Furthermore, the PBAA does not prevent her from having an abortion. She could still have a C-section abortion if she so chose. PBAA is there for convenience, not safety.
Finally, whether a homicide is justifiable or murder is not a medical decision. It is a moral judgement by society, which is then expressed by law (or lack thereof). That is not a doctor's decision. The only decision a doctor should be able to make in these circumstances is in deciding if the abortion is absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother, and even then society can make a decision that society prefers the child's life to the mother's (not that I advocate that).
To me, the main problem with the PBAA is that it violates states' rights.
Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at November 17, 2003 12:24 PM
I was a pro-abortionist and still have my opinions on the matter, but after having to do this report on Abortion, I have seen the horrific pictures and procedures they do and it made me sick. If a woman wants to hurt her self and kill her baby because she is worried about her mental health, I say it's a cop out for not wanting to take responsibility for her actions. In some cases I do agree with Abortion, but for someone to Abort there baby when it is 9 months old is truly murder. There are thousands of people who want a child and would take care of the baby that your about to Abort.
Posted by: Erica Taylor at January 8, 2004 06:13 PM
Posted by: online poker ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 25, 2005 01:26 PM
You know as I have been trying to get the government to realize that before any laws can be written about abortions the very first question we (as a nation) must answer and set as the standard is "When does life begin?". Without this being answered we cannot truly make any laws about it. The federal governemnt cannot banned abortion out right or accept it without first putting it to the vote of the people, or it would be seen as discriminatory against one side. This is why I have been pushing to get a Special National Vote to end the issue one way or the other as a nation, along with the Eminent Domain decision. That decision gave me and every citizen the right to call for this vote and to have this issue settled once and for all in this nation. If you really like to see it banned than join me in this quest of getting this vote July 4th, 2007. Because what better day, to decide when life begins and if we as citizens have the right to say "No" to any level of government that wants to seize our property except for the war against drugs and computer hacking, Thank you Thomas Coats.
Posted by: Dststm44 at August 14, 2005 11:11 AM
You know as I have been trying to get the government to realize that before any laws can be written about abortions the very first question we (as a nation) must answer and set as the standard is "When does life begin?". Without this being answered we cannot truly make any laws about it. The federal governemnt cannot banned abortion out right or accept it without first putting it to the vote of the people, or it would be seen as discriminatory against one side. This is why I have been pushing to get a Special National Vote to end the issue one way or the other as a nation, along with the Eminent Domain decision. That decision gave me and every citizen the right to call for this vote and to have this issue settled once and for all in this nation. If you really like to see it banned than join me in this quest of getting this vote July 4th, 2007. Because what better day, to decide when life begins and if we as citizens have the right to say "No" to any level of government that wants to seize our property except for the war against drugs and computer hacking, Thank you Thomas Coats.
Posted by: Dststm44 at August 14, 2005 11:12 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)