Texas pro-life advocates claimed victory after a federal appeals court unanimously reinstated state rules that require abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life, quoted, “Legislators worked so hard to pass House Bill 2, because they are not only concerned about protecting the unborn, but also about women going to abortion clinics with sub-standard conditions and unsanitary equipment.”
Let’s be honest, Texas legislators could give a spit about women’s healthcare or potentially receiving sub-standard medical conditions. That’s pretty much a ruse for the real issue. The real issue is to eliminate abortions, to save the unborn. Supporters were simply motivated by the fight against abortion. In the aftermath of battle, many low-income women were left inconvenient or costly healthcare options.
In claiming to be on a mission to save the unborn, at the end of all the hoopla, mothers will shoulder the most responsibility for raising a child. But a central issue of “right-to-life” remains unchartered. Specifically, does an unborn fetus have a legal right to life, to be protected from harm? At the 50,000 foot-level, many pro-life conservatives would concur accordingly.
From that notion, how would the court distinguish the mother from the other? At what point must a fetus be assigned legal representation? For instance, in 1946, Federal court recognized a child’s right to sue for injuries occurring while being a fetus. Can a fetus sue a mother for injuries after birth? Before birth? Suppose that unborn child didn’t wish to be adopted, yet was forced into adoption after birth? How would we handle children forced into adoption after birth? Does the unborn fetus have any say into whether they prefer being born to a crack addicted mother, an alcoholic father, an abusive uncle?
Who should bear the costs of fetal rights?
Texas, like many other states, including society itself, tolerates high-levels of child abuse, neglect, hunger and provides little support for women who actually give birth. If the unborn are living souls with basic intrinsic rights, how does society handle such abusive dilemmas? If you really look around, many of the choices made force unexpected mothers incur costs to freedom, mental security, identity and privacy. Postnatal resources provided to women are negligible. It’s almost as if to say, once a women becomes pregnant, the needs of the fetus outweigh the needs of the child and mother be damned.
By eliminating healthcare services, the Texas legislature has increased the number of women without services to about 500,000. Let’s say all Texas women were forced to carry children full-term. What would happen if 5,000 children sued the state for being born at all? What if they sued the state for child care, education and medical support? What a legal nightmare that would be.
A former boss used to say, “Be very careful of getting that which you really, really want.”