Have you heard the latest rumor (for example, check out RH Reality Check)? It seems that someone in the current administration is thinking about a rule that would kill all dissenting "birds" (aka women) with two stones:
Aiming Stone: Define abortion as any prescription or procedure that seeks to eliminate a fertile egg from a uterus, before or after implantation.
Killing Stone: Require any organization receiving federal funding to allow any healthcare providing employee to let his or her conscience be his or her guide in the practice of medicine involving said prescription or procedure.
Even for people who don’t believe in killing – at least not pre-birth humans – this is pretty drastic action. Surely, this can’t be true. In the first place, there's no way medical science can tell an egg is fertile until after implantation, so this means that the provider can just decide that a patient might be pregnant and proceed accordingly. Someone, tell me it isn’t true.
Would the next logical step be locking up all post-pubescent women because they might, at any time prior to menopause, be guilty of inadvertently flushing away a fertile egg? This is an urban myth, right?
Like most who believe as I do, my position on birth control (including the “morning after” pill) and early termination of pregnancy (including the RU-whatever-the-numbers-are) is "pro-choice."
I am not “pro-abortion.” I did not want an abortion at age 36, when I had amniocentesis. I wanted to make sure my first and only biological child could survive without constant life support or constant pain. I was very lucky. I was able to have my child.
While waiting for my amniocentesis, I heard a counselor urge a couple not to have amniocentesis, since they planned have the baby in any case. They said that they understood that they were taking a risk, but – given their risks – they wanted to be prepared. I thought the couple had the right to choose the test, even if it jeopardized the pregnancy. I thought the counselor was way out of line to continue insisting they re-think their decision even after they made their position clear.
It seems to me that we post-puberty human beings who have the ability to procreate have the right to have differing opinions. Even opinions that differ from those of qualified healthcare professionals. It seems to me that healthcare providers and counselors do not have the duty – and shouldn’t have a government-protected right – to refuse to discuss anything they themselves would not do. My doctor, bless his heart, will go so far as to say, “Yes, we could do that, but I would strongly recommend against it” and explain why “that” is medically inadvisable. He doesn’t say I mustn’t do it. Just one of the many things I like about him.
But back to the present (even though it seems alarmingly like the early 1950’s). My point is that the middle ground has many cases where choice, not "kill the baby," is the issue. Except, of course, that – if the rumor is correct – the current administration seems bent (pun intended) on eliminating all real estate from the middle ground.
What do you think?
