First, a quick review: the Texas law prohibits abortions
after 6 weeks without exceptions for anything, including rape and incest, or
ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb. It employs a cute (in the
sense that the term “cute” can be applied to, say, a giant, mean, ugly, evil,
violent ogre) trick to try to get around potential lawsuits that would be based
on fact that the Roe v. Wade decision gives women a Constitutional right to abortion.
The law does not mandate that state officials enforce it. Instead, anyone, from
any state, is empowered to be a “whistleblower” and turn in anyone enabling the
abortion (doctor, nurse, counselor, taxi driver) with the potential reward of
$10,000 (from the state, of course) if successful.
Neat, huh? The Supreme Court majority thought so too, and, using another trick (called the “shadow docket”) declined to invalidate it. This method obviates the need for a hearing, presentation of arguments on either side, questions from the justices, and thought-out opinions which present the reasoning of the majority and the dissenters. It thus does not require the identification of those voting in the majority (we only know in this case that it was 5-4 and who the 5 and 4 were because each of the 4 issued their own dissenting statement). It also does not allow the lower courts to know what the reasons and arguments were, resulting in inconsistent interpretation of the decision by those courts. This, of course, was on purpose. Justice Sotomayor (one of the 4) put it succinctly “The court has rewarded the state’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the state’s own creation.”
Several of the justices who created this problem have defended their action, and Justice Alito, in a speech at Notre Dame, not only defended the shadow docket but portrayed himself and the other members as the actual victims. This is another neat trick, which has been employed by the right, including former president Trump, and billionaires and corporations who have been criticized for such things as underpaying their workers and not paying taxes. The best defense, it is said, is a good offense.
Let’s review the science:
1. a large percentage of pregnant women do not even know that they are pregnant, particularly if they usually have irregular periods, before 6 weeks,
2. the assertion in the Texas law that the fetus has a heartbeat at 6 weeks, thus why they chose that timeframe, is incorrect. In fact, the embryo is not even a fetus at 6 weeks.
There is in fact a lot more relevant science, but let’s move on, since the science is only an issue for those of us who believe in it.
The reason for the restrictive abortion law in Texas (and
all the other states’) is not in the least because they have any respect for
science or medicine. For different individuals, of course, there are different
reasons. For some it is because of their religious beliefs, Catholic or
otherwise, that all life is sacred and thus abortion is murder. That this may
result in the death of the mother, or that it should then require the same
level of commitment to helping the parents ensure that children have a
reasonable chance at life (housing, food, clothing, education) may be positions
supported by some Catholics, including the current Pope, but is not a corollary
of opposition to abortion for most of these people. This is important, because in
the case of taking a human life by say, murdering them with a gun, the public
is not empowered to sue anyone who might have enabled them, like the gun
dealers or manufacturers.
For others, the abortion restrictions are, explicitly or not, about restricting the rights of women and relegating them to their place. This is so essentially the results of such laws and policies that denial of it is virtually always disingenuous. Even those who take the “life is life” Catholic anti-abortion position find themselves in this situation (arguably, this position on women is part of the justification by an entirely male-run church). None of these laws or policies create any penalty or responsibility for the male whose role in creating the pregnancy was central. And 100% of unintended pregnancies are directly caused by men.
Finally, the reason for these laws is political. They garner support for a generally right-wing, pro-corporate political agenda from those who would not support it as such. This trend has always been part of US politics, but more explicitly so since Richard Nixon. Ultimately, of course, whatever the ostensible position of any individual is, the issue is essentially about politics. You put together a coalition, and then you implement the laws you want to. Make no mistake, this is what it is about. Nationally, a large majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade (about 60%). In individual states, it may differ. A good history of the right-wing of the GOP looking for an issue that would mobilize the evangelical community in support of them, and their segregationist, pro-corporate agenda, is found in a recent issue of Politico. Abortion turned out to work after other issues didn’t, despite evangelical ambivalence on the issue at the time.
For nearly two decades,
[right-wing activist and segregationist Paul] Weyrich, by his own account, had
been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest:
pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the
Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in
those issues and I utterly failed.”
To the extent that the Texas anti-abortion law is about a rejection of science to achieve a political or religious or misogynist agenda, it is not entirely a separate issue from COVID and opposition to mask or vaccination or distancing mandates. The politicians want what they want – mainly power – and are willing to pander to whoever to get it, even fomenting anti-science agendas. Truth no longer matters, and it has gotten beyond an abstract concept to the point where people are dying, and yet others are still unwilling to believe in the cause-and-effect. A recent article in Rolling Stone notes that in parts of Oklahoma, hospitals are not only full of people with COVID and its complications but with people who are overdosing on ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that has widely -- and falsely – been promoted as a treatment for COVID. Since ivermectin requires a prescription for people (and it is indicated for certain kinds of worm infestations and actually does work to treat scabies), people are buying it at feed stores where it is sold for deworming horses! If the RS article is correct, many of these hospitals are even too full for gunshot victims!
COVID is a virus, and one that mutates and evolves (whether
you believe in evolution or not) and can create more dangerous strains like the
Delta variant. It is infectious. Immunization offers great, if not perfect
protection; while it is possible to get infected after being immunized, it is
less likely and, more important, it is much less likely that you will be
hospitalized, ventilated, and die. This is
a fate reserved almost exclusively for the unvaccinated. Masks do help,
although they are better at protecting others from being infected by you than
protecting you from others – this is why OTHER people wearing masks makes a
difference. This is science. On abortion – a “6 week” pregnancy is measured
since the last menstrual period, which could easily mean 4 weeks since
ovulation, 2-3 weeks since fertilization, and less since implantation, not to
mention a positive pregnancy test. A very high percent of women don’t yet know
that they are pregnant.
Scientific answers are arrived at through experimentation and re-experimentation; “truth” changes as more information becomes available. It is messy, not simple and easy to understand like a “belief”, or something you read on the internet. If it is one-dimensional and simple it is probably wrong.
But more important, it is usually out there to accomplish another agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment