Sigh. Here we are again, or maybe I should say here I (and Vox) am again, rallying for the pro-choice cause for the last time this semester. I thought that my latest article would be my last, but in light of the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, I sadly must write to defend our cause once more.
On Wednesday, April 18, the Supreme Court announced its decision that the Federal Abortion Ban would stand, although it had failed in every lower court. While this decision is extremely important, and made some first pages, it was unfortunately issued when our minds were (and still are), understandably focused on the horrible Virginia Tech tragedy. So Vox is here to bring this issue to campus, present the facts and explain the importance of the decision and the act.
The Federal Abortion ban, signed by President Bush in 2003, criminalizes a procedure termed by Congress as "partial-birth abortion," which is used in the second trimester of pregnancy. If you look up the act, you will read descriptions of graphic procedures, such as "killing," "puncturing" and "removing the baby's brains." Clearly, this description is dripping with the bias of a Congress that wrote and passed the ban. This is not the medical definition, and in fact, there is much controversy over the frequency with which the act portrays the actual procedure being used and if this is indeed how it is performed in the way the act portrays it. There are many variations of the procedure, and the legislation is unclear as to what variations fit this description.
Furthermore, the procedure is used late in the second trimester when, according to Planned Parenthood, less than 10 percent of abortions are performed. It is true that the procedure is graphic and unpleasant; however, it is only used when it is necessary.
It is not for women who suddenly decide they do not want their child, but rather is used by doctors for women whose health is at risk, and for whom this is the safest option. The Federal Abortion Ban has an exception for the life of the woman, but does not take into account the health of the woman.
In fact, many medical groups oppose the ban of the procedure, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Nurses Association. The ban gives politicians the power to make medical decisions and inhibits a physician's ability to make the best choices along with his/her patients and families.
Still not convinced that this ban is a bad thing? Log onto www.plannedparenthood.org and read the numerous stories of women who had to terminate wanted and planned pregnancies because it risked their health or that of their baby. For example, Catherine recounts how "[I]f I tried to carry to term and suffered a late term fetal death or miscarriage, there was a serious chance of complications for me. I might hemorrhage [sic], I might get an infection, the trisomy might interfere with the development of the placenta and leave me deathly ill. My OB told me, in very plain language, that if I carried this pregnancy to term, there was a very high chance that I would never bear another child."
Or Heather, who says, "It took me an agonizing week to make this heartbreaking choice, but in the end I know it was the best decision for me, my family and most importantly, our child. We lost our oldest son at 6 years and 10 months old, to complications from having a rare type of dwarfism ... We knew without a doubt that we could never in good conscience bring another child into this world with that disease."
These are not the stereotype of careless women who use abortions as birth control. These are women who had to make the devastating decision of aborting a wanted child in order to not risk their own lives, child's lives, or fertility.
Not only is the ban unacceptable because it sets a precedent for disregarding a women's health, but also because it is an example of how our government is slowly chipping away at reproductive rights. Yes, there are other second trimester options, but are they the safest for the woman? This decision sets a new precedent - that a woman does not have control over her own body to make decisions about it.
For the first time, it undermines Roe v. Wade, breaking the precedent that a woman has the right to makes choices about her body and that all abortion restrictions have exceptions for the woman's physical or mental health. The upholding of this act proves that the federal government is trying to take away women's right to choice, and allows states to take further action.
Numerous NGOs, such as Guttmacher Institute, have proven again and again that abortion rates in countries where it is illegal are just about as high as countries in which they are legal, but abortions are obviously more unsafe in places where it is illegal. In fact, the only countries with low abortion rates are the Nordic countries, where sex is openly discussed and comprehensive sex education programs are used in all schools. Therefore, making abortion illegal does nothing to stop or lessen it, but instead risks more women's lives.
So if after reading all of this, you too share the outrage and disgust of the pro-choice community toward this decision, there are steps you can take. The Freedom of Choice Act proposed by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) would put the health exception and the privacy of a woman's choice defined in Roe v. Wade into law.
On Monday, Vox will be tabling outside the campus center for signatures for a petition that supports the Freedom of Choice Act. You can also visit www.prochoicemass.org and find sample letters to write to your Congress person. Or you can call 202-224-3121 and be directed to your local representative. You can also write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper about the disgrace of the ban. If you want to continue helping the pro-choice campaign, look out for Tufts Vox meetings next semester! Take action, and help stop the horrifying legislation against choice!
Alyssa Ursillo is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
