Pro-lifers threaten mothers' lives in South Carolina
Today, the South Carolina House Judiciary Committee voted 13-7 to send a near-total abortion ban in the state to the full House. The bill does not include exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. And this lack of exceptions has already promised a legislative fight. Unsurprisingly, the Republicans provided all the ‘yes’ votes and the Democrats all the ‘no’ votes. Notably, three Republican committee members abstained.
One of them, GOP Rep. Neal Collins, told the Committee he would not be voting on a ban because of how it would affect the care sick, pregnant women will receive. He told the Committee he had been profoundly disturbed by the story of a pregnant woman whose abnormal pregnancy could have killed her. Especially as doctors had refused to extract the fetus from the 19-year-old whose water broke at 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Collins said the doctors had determined there was a "greater than 50% chance that she's going to lose her uterus.” And there was also a 10% chance that the woman could die of sepsis. He explained that, because of the doctors’ fear of legal repercussions, the woman had to carry her terminally ill fetus for two weeks until its heart stopped.
"That weighs on me. I voted for that bill. These are affecting people and we're having a meeting about this. That whole week I did not sleep.
The Bill does provide an exception if a fetal abnormality threatens the mother's life. But here, as in all cases, the language is so vague — and the penalty for illegal abortions so severe — doctors cannot risk providing the treatment these unfortunate women need. Losing a uterus is not usually life-threatening. And the odds of the woman dying from sepsis were small enough that a committed prosecutor in a hostile judicial system could well argue that the standard of ‘life-threatening’ had not been met.
What should the standard be — an odds-on, 51%? Or should the law indemnity doctors who make medical decisions that require an abortion? One excellent guide — for this one question at least — can be found in Islam. This conservative religion is against most abortions. However, Muslims place far more value in a living woman than a fetus. And abortion is typically allowed when the life and health of the mother are at risk. Especially before the ‘ensoulment’, usually considered the 120th day of pregnancy.
The overwhelming vote to preserve choice in Kansas has led many Republican strategists to question the political sense of anti-choice laws, especially those which condemn the victims of rape and incest to motherhood. But on the front lines, there are enough sadistic misogynists to enact the most inhumane anti-abortion laws. They should pay attention to the Irish abortion story.
In October 2012, a 31-year-old Irish woman Savita Halappanavar repeatedly asked for an abortion because she had severe back pain and was miscarrying. Doctors refused because the fetus had a heartbeat. She consequently died. And an autopsy determined the cause was septicemia.
The public reaction to Ireland’s almost total ban on abortions was fierce. In this most Catholic country, the church took a beating. And the government changed the law to allow abortion up to 12 weeks. And after that, doctors had the freedom to make medically necessary decisions to protect women and abort non-viable fetuses without the risk of prosecution.
Should South Carolina enact this extreme measure, it - like every other anti-legal abortion bill - will have little ‘pro-life’ benefit. Women, with unwanted pregnancies, will still terminate them illegally. And some, who suffer during pregnancy, will die unnecessarily.
How very cruel.