The Republican
platform contains two sentences that would spell the end of women’s rights. The
hidden threatening consequences of these two sentences must be exposed.
These two sentences advocate equal rights for fetuses. The platform states, “We
support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to
make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn
children.” The Fourteenth Amendment provides that a state may not “deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The platform
also states that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life
which cannot be infringed.” These words have been there and repeated since
2004. They will continue to be repeated if their implications are not fully
exposed.
These words have been misinterpreted to merely state an
opposition to all abortions. But giving equal rights to fetuses is much more
devastating than that. You cannot give equal rights to fetuses without taking
away the rights of those who carry fetuses--or who unknowingly might be
carrying fetuses--within their own bodies.
Giving equal rights to fetuses support the following shocking
consequences:
Consequence 1: All states have laws that protect the health of children
to the extent that state agencies may remove a child from the parents if the
appropriate state agency determines that the parents are abusive or the
parental home is not in the best interests of the child. But what if that
“child” is a fetus? The Republican’s position gives the fetus the same rights
and protections as a child. The platform would empower the state agency to do
what it can to protect the fetus, just as the agency is already empowered to do
what it can to protect a born child. Thus, a state agency could determine that
the best interests of a viable fetus require that it be removed from the pregnant
woman against her will, and handed over to medical personnel and foster care.
This might occur, for example, if the pregnant woman does anything that might
increase the probability of harm to the fetus, such as taking illegal drugs,
having unprotected sex, drinking heavily or not eating well.
Consequence 2: If a fetus does not survive, and that failure to survive
can be attributed to any behavior of the woman who carried it, the woman could
be prosecuted for causing the fetus’ death. This could result in charges
ranging from manslaughter to first degree murder. Part II of this two-part series
will give a real example of such an occurrence.
Consequence 3: Since conception cannot be immediately determined, every
woman of child-bearing age would have to be treated as a potential carrier of a
fetus. To protect the equal rights of this potential fetus, the state not only
would have to monitor the sexual activities of every woman of child-bearing age
to see if she might be pregnant, it also would have to require her to behave in
certain ways so as not to harm the fetus that might be within her--whether or
not she is actually pregnant. If a woman failed to behave in those prescribed
ways and happened to get pregnant and the fetus did not survive, she would be
subject to Consequence 2.
In short, the consequences of the Republican platform’s position would
potentially lead to placing all women of child-bearing age, not just pregnant
women, under governmental surveillance and control. Thus, this extreme “pro-life”
position would destroy the equal rights of women. This is a threat to women’s
rights that must not be glossed over or ignored.
We must all take
notice and do what we can to expose these consequences of the Republican
platform. We cannot have democracy without equal rights for women. Giving equal
rights to fetuses would destroy women’s rights and thereby destroy a necessary
component of democracy.
Where does the
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stand on this issue? Given that he has not repudiated this part of the Republican platform, it must be assumed
that he supports it. That would be a significant danger were he to become
President.
Even if President
Obama wins the election, we must not forget that the continuing presence of
this part of the Republican platform will remain a lurking threat to women’s
rights. Imagine what would happen if the Republicans controlled the Presidency
and both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court.
Fetuses would have equal rights, and women would suffer the consequences.
I particularly like the way you clarify the implications of the personhood movement. I am wondering what you think of the right of the State to intervene for the health or welfare of a child. I can see why that makes sense in some areas, but it seems to me that this power might be abused -- and probably has been abused. I think of the removal of Native Americans from their communities to Indian Schools -- for their welfare. The wide-spread adoption by (generally) White Americans of children from communities or nations. I have always felt a bit queasy about the number of children taken from other countries and cultures and brought into the United States. This may not be related, but behind this whole notion of "rights" of "individuals" is the lack of any discussion about the rights and responsibilities of communities. After all, the role and function of children in communities and the responsibility of communities for children should be a part of this discussion. Turning it into a strictly legal argument or a legal right leads us to unfortunate consequences, I think.
ReplyDelete