catholicsphere

Yesterday, Partial-Birth Abortion Law was struck down in two courts. It was invalidated because it did not include a provision for “the health of the mother”.

Unfortunately, Doe v Bolton decided that “health of the mother” really constituted any reason the woman would give, and which she could find a licensed medical doctor to accept. It decided that the rights of the woman usurped any rights of the child growing in the womb.

But, in this procedure of “intact dilation and extraction” (IDX) that is struck down as unconstitutional, the “risks to the health of the mother” are those that can can receive “relief” via alternatives. In the case of IDX, the child is born to near completion, before his/her life is terminated. If the woman can survive the birth of a child, there seems to compelling reason to allow that life to be terminated.

The future “health and life” of the mother can be remedied through adoption. To those who argue that there will remain mental uncertainty from having a living child “somewhere in the world”, I would ask how that would be more harmful to her life and health than the knowledge that she terminated the life of her child.

Such rulings by the courts make little sense. They have taken up the issue of whether the presence of a child would endanger the realm of the health of the mother, without considering whether the termination of that child’s life poses similar dangers to her health.

Thankfully, there are studies such as those documented here and here, that are causing concern enough to be placed in consideration of these laws and rulings … but, still not enough …

It is said that the rulings made yesterday may come before the Supremes … and this we shall be watching closely …