The Case for Repealing Anti-Abortion Laws

[PeaceNikki]

Long, but a great read.

(PDF) http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/repeal.pdf

No country needs to regulate abortion via criminal or civil law. Only when abortion has the same legal status as any other health procedure can it be fully integrated into women’s reproductive healthcare.

by Joyce Arthur

The repeal of abortion laws is supported by evidence from Canada, the only democratic country in the world with no laws restricting abortion since 1988. Abortions have since become earlier and safer, and the number of abortions has become moderate and stable. Current abortion care reflects what most Canadians are comfortable with, and women and doctors act in a timely and responsible manner, with no need for regulation.

Several legal arguments help build the case for abortion law repeal. A constitutional guarantee of women’s equality can be used to overturn abortion laws, and ensure that abortion is funded by the healthcare system as a medically-required service. Freedom of religion, the right to privacy, and the right to self-defense can also be used to strike down laws. All anti-abortion restrictions are unjust, harmful, and useless because they rest on traditional religious and patriarchal foundations. Laws kill and injure women, violate their human rights and dignity, impede access to abortion, and obstruct healthcare professionals.

Solutions for Repealing Anti-abortion Laws
Here’s some suggested solutions to get rid of harmful anti-abortion laws:
�� Guarantee women’s equality in countries’ constitutions.
�� Collect evidence of laws’ harms, find plaintiffs, and challenge laws in court.
�� Lobby government against abortion restrictions (meet with legislators, submit briefs).
�� Educate media, government, health professionals, and public about the harm and futility of abortion restrictions.
�� Challenge the religious basis of anti-abortion laws, and keep church and state separate.
�� Change the rhetoric: Abortion is not a “necessary evil.” Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
�� Empower women in society by changing public policies.
�� Change patriarchal attitudes about women and motherhood through advocacy and education.
�� Prioritize childcare and child-rearing as a universal concern, not a “woman’s issue.”

Some of these proposed solutions are obviously very difficult and would take many years. But one has to start somewhere.

To conclude, no country needs any laws against abortion whatsoever. We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that’s all we need to regulate the process.

[napi21]

1. My opinion has always been that gov't has no place in the abortion

ussye at all! It should be a decision between her Dr., her husband, and her God. I personally don't think it the right thing to dok, but it's NOT my position to tell anyone else what they can & can't do.

All the chirches who are pushing this issue should push it in their own congregations, and convince their parisioners that it wrong, but to involve the Gov't has no standing!

[AnnieBW]

2. But... but...

You might be killing Baby Jeebus if you have an abortion! So we have to outlaw it, so morally bankrupt hussies we can continue to breed white Christian soldiers for our War Against Islam! :sarcasm:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Most pro-choice activists and liberals disagree with her.

Third-trimester abortion on demand is a political non-issue, and I think it probably should remain so - I don't agree that the point at which a foetus becomes a person is the mother's decision; I think that that point is the point at which it aquires self-awareness, around about two trimesters in.

The pro-choice movement should - and does - focus on making abortion easier and - crucially - less traumatic (one very good point that she makes is that pre-sentience abortions are not a "necessary evil") in the first two trimesters, and ensuring that it's available in the case of emergency in the third.

[PeaceNikki]

4. Women and their doctors cannot be trusted to make the right decision?

That's what it looks like you're saying.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. That's a corrolary to what I'm saying, and it's far less controversial than you make it sound.

Consider the fact that we have laws at all - both men and women are not trusted to *always* make the right decision. We don't trust either gender not to commit murder or theft, or even not to drive too fast.

It is not merely true but completely self-evident that both women and doctors will sometimes make the wrong decision (in either direction) about whether or not to have/advise to have an abortion, and regret it later.

Whether the law should compel them or whether it should be their mistake to make is a completely different and much less obvious question (virtually everyone, including me and nearly all pro-choice activists, would answer "in some circumstances, but not most"; a depressingly large minority think abortion should always be forbidden; there are not many supporters of third-trimester abortion on demand at all), but "trust" is nothing to do with it.

It's worth noting, though, that the number of women who choose to have late abortions except in medical emergencies is pretty negligable, so while the answer is technically "no", it's pretty much a technicality.

[PeaceNikki]

6. Well, pencil me in for disagreeing with you completely.

And I'd be interested in seeing any evidence that pro-choice activists disagree with Joyce Arthur on this or any other opinion piece she's written. This paper is linked on several sites.

[WildClarySage]

7. Self awareness? Hah! my 2yr old doesn't exhibit

self awareness! He tried to eat the cat today. Don't think that qualifies him as an intelligent being, either, rofl.

The argument over abortion ultimately goes to whether or not women can be compelled to support the life of another at her own peril against her wishes. Whether that "other" is a person needing a kidney or a blood donation or a fetus in her womb. Every person gets to decide what risks they are willing to accept for the sake of another, except- in your argument- pregnant women in their third trimester.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Cojoined twins, possibly?

I don't know what the medical ethics involved when one of a pair of cojoined twins wants to be separated and it would be fatal for the other - I can't imagine it comes up very often. Pregnancy is a situation unlike pretty much any other that arrises outside ethics textbooks, so you can't really draw many analogies.

[iverglas]

9. maybe in the US, which isn't actually the centre of the universe

Are you speaking for all of England or the UK?

In Canada, ALL pro-choice activists agree with her. And we don't worry much about "liberals".

We don't care what YOU believe about when a fetus becomes a person, any more than we care what you believe about how many faeries there are at the bottom of your garden. The question is not one of "belief".

We're ever so grateful for your advice about what our movement should do, I'm sure. Nonetheless, here in Canada, we'll continue to focus on fending off any attempts by the revolting misogynist right wings of the Liberal and Conservative parties to interfere in the exercise of women's rights.

Quite a few churches are part of that movement, btw.

http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/1989/a116

United Church Social Policy Positions
Abortion and the Criminal Code (1989)

THAT the Executive of General Council:

1. Re-affirm the theological principles, ethical norms and recommended strategies for prevention of unwanted pregnancies and the support of women in the 1980 statement;

2. Urge the Government of Canada not to use provisions in the criminal code to regulate abortion;

3. Urge the Government of Canada through the use of shared funding under the Canada Health Act to require all provincial governments to provide adequate contraceptive education and services to effectively reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies; and to provide adequate access to early diagnosis and termination of pregnancy so that any abortion should be as early as possible;

4. Eliminate the suggestion that consultation with a second doctor should be required for abortions after the 12-14 week period.

THAT the 1980 statement be revised so that it reads as follows:
on the second page:

2. Abortion

2. The previous law, which required a Hospital therapeutic abortion committee to authorize an abortion was unjust in principle and unworkable in practice.

3. We do not support "abortion on demand." We believe that abortion should be a personal matter between a woman and her doctor, who should earnestly consider their understanding of the particular situation permitting the woman to bring to bear her moral and religious insights into human life in reaching a decision through a free and responsive exercise of her conscience.

on the third page

THEREFORE

1. We urge the Government of Canada to:

1. Not use the provisions in the Criminal Code to regulate abortion;

2. Enact and enforce penalties for people who without the required medical qualifications perform or attempt to perform abortions or who perform or attempt abortion in places other than those approved for that purpose;

3. Through the use of shared funding under the Canada Health Act to require all provincial governments to provide adequate contraceptive education and services to effectively reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies; and to provide early access to early diagnosis and, if necessary, termination of pregnancy so that any abortion should be as early as possible.

2. We urge provincial governments to:

1. Provide adequate contraceptive education and services;

2. Provide facilities, and require all hospitals to declare publicly their policy on abortion.

Executive of General Council, November 1989, p. 207-208

[PeaceNikki]

10. Thank you.

Just thank you.