In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the federal law banning “partial birth abortions,” various states are moving quickly to further limit the right to choose. They’ve seen the handwriting on the wall, so to speak.
In Oklahoma, its legislature must believe in that old axiom that “if first you don’t succeed …” because they have resurrected an abortion bill that will make it difficult, if not impossible for poor and/or uninsured women to receive an abortion should they desire one:
(cont.)
Anti-abortion legislation vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry that would prevent state resources and facilities from being used to perform abortions was resurrected by the Oklahoma House Monday.
The new legislation, approved 77-19, retains abortion restrictions opposed by many doctors and the Oklahoma State Medical Association but widens exceptions to the ban and gives doctors more freedom to discuss termination as an option with pregnant patients. […]
The bill received bipartisan support in spite of objections from opponents who said it is more about politics than good public policy, would discriminate against uninsured and underinsured women who depend on state-funded health care facilities and could make it harder for state-supported teaching hospitals to be accredited.
In short, rich women and women who have health insurance that actually covers abortion procedures (no idea how many do, but I’m guessing it’s an increasingly small number of policies) can still find a way to terminate their pregnancies. Everyone else? Your rights will be eviscerated should this bill make it past the Governor, who I suspect will be under tremendous pressure not to issue a second veto.
In Missouri, meanwhile, the legislature and the courts there have taken a different tack by opening up the floodgates to lawsuits against abortion providers:
The Missouri House voted Tuesday to allow some family members to sue doctors who perform a particular abortion procedure on their relatives.
The provision would allow a husband or the parents of girl younger than 18 years old to sue for psychological and physical damages as a result of what the bill calls a “partial-birth abortion.”
* * * * *
The Missouri Supreme Court … Tuesday unanimously upheld … a 2005 law that allows parents to sue people who help their minor daughters get an abortion without parental consent.
These measures are intended to make it more and more difficult for doctors to provide abortion services. My guess is that no insurance company will offer malpractice insurance to doctors who perform abortions, or increase the insurance rates to such high levels that many, if not all doctors in Missouri will be forced to stop performing abortions of all kinds.
You see, you don’t have to explicitly ban all abortions to eliminate the right to choose. All you need do is make it impossible for a woman to find a physician willing to perform an abortion in the first place. In effect, it creates a “back door” ban, especially among the poor and under-insured women who do not have the financial resources to seek out of state abortions. Which, let’s be honest, is most women these days.
Then, as less and less women have the opportunity to choose abortion as an option, the anti-abortion movement will then be able to argue for overturning Roe v. Wade in its entirety based, in part, on statistics which show less women are having abortions. An argument, by the way, that at least four justices on the Supreme Court would be more than happy to hang their hats upon should a case for the complete reversal of Roe come before them.
They say that elections matter. Presidential elections, Congressional elections, and state elections. Unfortunately, it seems far too many politicians in both major parties either are actively working to eradicate all abortions, or just don’t give a damn about a woman’s right to choose. Sadly, it’s likely that the only chance we have to retain that right may be the election of a President who will appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will uphold Roe, followed by the resignation or death of one or more anti-choice justices while that President is in office. Considering that the conservative justices on the Court are, on average, younger than their liberal counterparts, this seems like a poor bet to me.
Which means that chances are, my daughter and yours, and every other woman in America, will probably lose this valuable right in the years to come. They will once again become second class citizens, without the power to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, their health and their reproduction. But then, the Declaration of Independence never said a word about women being endowed with inalienable rights, now did it.
