By Carol Lucas
You would have to have occupied a cave a couple weeks ago to have missed it. No, I’m not talking about the eclipse. Once again, the issue of abortion reared its head and took over the news cycle.
If you have read my previous columns, you know I am an adamant supporter of a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her own body and the health of that body. Only she knows and is living with her circumstances. I admit to not understanding why someone would not have an abortion early in the pregnancy, regardless of her reasons. To wait, it would seem, only complicates things more. However, each case is different.
But certainly there are no compelling reasons to deny this procedure in cases of rape or incest or danger to the woman’s health. The aforementioned would seem so reasonable, and yet that denial exists in many of the state regulations.
So let’s take a look at how some of the states are dealing with this very sticky issue. First there is Texas where it would seem that compassion on any level for any concern is sorely missing.
Texas laws ban nearly all abortions unless, “in the exercise of a reasonable medical judgment,” a doctor determines that the patient is experiencing “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial harm.” Really?
Observe the case of Kate Cox who received a fatal fetal diagnosis, and continuing the pregnancy would pose risks to her health and future fertility. The Texas Supreme Court ruled in December 2023 that it would not allow her to get an abortion in the state. So much for reasonable medical judgment. It might be worth noting that as of January 2023, all nine judges, four of whom are women, on that court identified with the Republican Party.
And then there is Alabama where the issue of “when the fetus becomes a person” was front and center. The conservative judges in the Alabama in vitro fertilization case issued a ruling on February 16 declaring that embryos created through IVF should be considered children, and that in the event of destruction, charges could be brought.
And finally the most recent case appeared in Arizona where officials are scrambling to address a near total abortion ban revived by the state’s Supreme Court this week, before the Civil War-era law almost completely halts access to Arizona’s already limited abortion services.
What I have provided are thumbnail sketches of the most highly publicized cases. Since the overturn of Roe, 21 states have enacted tighter restrictions on abortion. Some of these are even aimed at restricted access to the abortion pill, mifepristone, and the ability to gain this by mail.
So much for state decision-making.
But take heart, readers. I have come up with what I believe to be the perfect solution. However, you had best strap in because I can already hear the howls of rage, even as I type.
Why not put into law mandatory vasectomies for all boys at age 10? After all, they are reversible, and the reverse procedure could be performed at, let’s say, age 25. Abortion problem is mostly solved.
“What?” you proclaim. “How could you force a little boy to undergo this?” And my response is, “How do you force a 10 year-old girl who has been impregnated through an incestuous rape to carry the fetus to term just because she is unfortunate enough to live in Ohio?”
In addition to the vasectomies, I suggest we put into place a lottery that all those screaming anti-abortionists, including the jurists who so casually vote to place a woman’s health in jeopardy, must sign up for. The “lucky” anti-abortion winner will take that child, raise him or her, from birth till 18 years of age, providing all the needs and requirements of rearing.
Outrageous? Of course it is, but no more so than depriving a woman of the right to determine what she can and cannot do, and making her adhere to some ridiculous law set forth in the 1800s.
Folks, I am sure you recognize the oozing sarcasm and derision with which I write the above proposal. Perhaps that is what it takes to bring some people to their senses. For those of you turned off by it, I assure you that I am equally turned off by what has become a war against a woman’s rights.
In conclusion, recognize this. The election of a President who supports outlawing abortion is untenable. Furthermore, don’t ignore the far-reaching implications of that President, because it is he (or she) who places those jurists on the courts of our land. The President may be gone in four or eight years, but the jurists are there much longer, and it is they who determine those laws that affect us.
Sadly, since the overturn of Roe vs Wade, we have seen the politicization of our judiciary that in turn is politicizing medicine. Doctors are fearful to treat women who are in need, and this should never, I repeat, never be acceptable.
Think of this domino effect when you vote. Mitch McConnell refused to bring a Supreme Court Obama nominee to the floor for a vote. Donald Trump is elected and places three ultra conservatives on the highest court of the land.
And the rest is history.
Carol Lucas is a retired high school teacher and a Lady’s Island resident. She is the author of the recently published “A Breath Away: One Woman’s Journey Through Widowhood.”
