Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 28 Aug 1992 21:44:49 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice and post-viability abortions?

In article <29160@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> Stephen J. Mezias says:
>
>A question that seems implicit in many discussions of post-viability
>abortions and in disputes (real and imagined) among those who are
>pro-choice seems to be the following: Is there a rationale for
>restrictions on post-viability abortions for someone who favors a
>woman's right to choose abortion?
>
>I believe that one possible answer is yes, premised on some fairly
>straightforward (althouth not necessarily very palatable) assumptions:
>
>(1) Because the fetus has been allowed to develop to the point where
>it could survive without her, its status has changed.

This assumption, Mr. Mezias, has allowed courts in
the US to order women to undergo c-sections they
did not want.  For example:

"A review of medical institutions in eighteen states
between 1981 and 1986 identified thirty-six cases where
doctors had gone to court to force an unwilling woman
to submit to obstetrical intervention - most of the
time within a day after they first heard of the woman's
refusal.  Judges granted all but three of the
requested court orders - 88 percent within six
hours, 20 percent within an hour or less.  At times
consent was conveniently granted over the phone.
The women's wishes were ignored in these cases even
though in no instance had they been found to be
mentally incompetent.  And most of these situations
weren't even emergencies; in only two cases did
doctors demand a cesarean section because they
believed the fetus was in serious medical danger"
S. Faludi, Backlash

In one particular case a woman was strapped with
wrist and ankle cuffs to her hospital bed when
she refused to sign pre-consent to a c-section
and was not allowed to seek health care elsewhere.

In the case of Angela Carder, she was denied
an abortion at 26 weeks, when her cancer which
had been in remission returned.  She was
denied treatment of the cancer because it
would harm her fetus.  A court ordered c-section
was performed and both mother and child died.
Three years after her death the D.C Court
of Appeals agreed with Ms. Carder's family,
that the court had "erred" in deciding the
fetus should have priority over the mother.

Do you agree that the fetus' right should take
such precedence over the woman?

Should hospitals act in such a manner because
they fear prolifer's taking them to court to
protect fetal rights (this was the reasoning
given in Angela Carder's case)?

Should doctor's have the right to impose
their belief of fetal rights on unwilling women?
This includes denying women the option of using
midwives and participating in legal activities
that may or may not harm the fetus.

>(2) Because the woman could have aborted the fetus prior to viability
>and because the status of the fetus has now changed, the woman may now
>be considered to have entered into an implied contract with the fetus.

This and your other comments are based on the same
reasoning as the prolife argument that "because a
woman consented to sex, she consented to pregnancy".
Further it again insults the ethics and intelligence
of not only women, but health care professionals,
by implying that late term abortions will be carried
out for trivial reasons or due to ignorance.  I,
personally, find this argument tenuous for early
abortions and I think it is even more so when
applied to late term abortions.

Canada has no abortion legislation.  There are no
government sanctioned restrictions in place.  Yet
there has not been a run on late term abortions
in this country.  Abortion is a medical procedure.
One that, like all medical procedures, has guidelines
established and regulated by the medical community.

I think the following statement from CARAL's brief
to the Canadian Senate says it best:

"Criminal legislation is widely recognized as a "blunt
 instrument" which should be used only when it can make
 a significant contribution to a socially threatening
 problem.  Our experience in the last three years
 without a criminal abortion law, and of the last
 fourteen years in Quebec (after the Quebec government
 stopped trying to enforce the old criminal abortion
 law), proves that the absence of criminal sanctions
 does not result in "abuse".  There is no evidence that
 the number of abortions has significantlly increased
 since January 28, 1988 or that more late abortions
 are being performed today.  We know that women needing
 an abortion want to have one as early as possible.
 Abortions in Canada continue to be performed in the
 first trimester for the vast majority (89%) of cases;
 late abortions (after 20 weeks) comprise only 0.4% of
 all abortions in the country and are done only in
 exceptional cases."  December 1990

The Senate ruled against enacting the new abortion law
and the ruling Conservative party stated they would
not be putting forward another.

Since the demise of abortion laws, women have seen
the government enact a strong "No means No" rape
law, sexual harassment and gender discrimination
laws, and a public inquiry into domestic violence
that recommended zero tolerance of abuse that included
ensuring women's safety and viable options to get out.
This may all be a coincidence, but I like to think
that it is an offshoot of the acceptance that a woman
has the right to control her body and has the ability
to make even the most difficult of choices on her own.



Linda
--
"The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is
 essentially a moral decision and in a free and democractic
 society the conscience of the individual must be
 paramount to that of the state"  Justice B. Wilson