In outlawing the use of mifepristone, federal Judge Kacsmaryk used language that raises some serious questions for the anti-choice/anti-abortionists.
Right off the bat he explains in a footnote why he uses the terms "unborn human" or "unborn child" rather than "fetus."
Jurists often use the word “fetus” to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways. The word “fetus” refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages … Because other jurists use the terms “unborn human” or “unborn child” interchangeably, and because both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages relevant to the FDA Approval, 2016 Changes, and 2021 Changes, this Court uses “unborn human” or “unborn child” terminology throughout this Order, as appropriate.
In equating an "unborn human" or "unborn child" with a zygote (ie, "both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages") he is suggesting that fertilization is the point at which an egg becomes a human.
Kacsmaryk goes on to write that mifepristone is used to "kill an unborn human."
If you agree with him, then every attempt to terminate a pregnancy at any stage for any reason is murder.
So before the anti-choice/anti-abortionists celebrate the judge's ruling, they'll need to answer a couple of questions:
- If abortion at any stage after fertilization involves killing an unborn human, how can you support a 15-week ban or a 6-week ban?
- If abortion involves killing an unborn human, how can you make exceptions for rape or incest?
- If abortion involves killing an unborn human, wouldn't a woman who knowingly took mifepristone be guilty of murder?
Republicans need to figure out the abortion issue ASAP. We are getting killed by indie voters who think we support full bans with no exceptions.
— Jon Schweppe (@JonSchweppe) April 5, 2023
Time for everyone to suck it up and unify behind @LindseyGrahamSC’s 15-wk bill w/ exceptions. That’s the play.
The alternative is…
The problem is that, as Kacsmaryk's ruling suggests, the majority of the anti-choice crowd DOES believe in full bans with no exceptions. How do Republicans square that circle? They can't. So we need to keep holding their feet to the fire in order to make that clear.
The Bible doesn't even consider a fetus as living. It says life begins at birth. The Bible (Old Testament) gives instructions to induce an abortion. If this comes down to scripture, Kacsmaryk loses, by a lot.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to be critical, honest. As a Jew (of sorts), I've long felt the efforts to define life at conception to be an imposition on me and an entire people of faith; and as a civil libertarian, I consider it an infringement on religious liberty for all. But you'll have to instruct me on this one.
DeleteI remember only a clause stating (in an archaic language that admittedly is hard to put into modern terms) that a man who induces a miscarriage in an another man's wife owes that other man recompense. Thus, it's clearly not murder. It also may have a backdrop in the idea of the wife as a man's property, but never mind. It's still not going along with the worst of Christian conservatives. And there's also a talmudic tradition, not biblical, that must be respected and that does try to define when life begins, with the first breath. That most often is interpreted to mean at birth, although some have tried to apply it to modern biology in a way that identifies life with lung development. But again, considerable conformity with abortion rights as we defend them today.
This reference is to Numbers 5, 11-22 which refers to a woman suspected of adultery and a treatment presumed to obtain a miscarriage. .
DeleteI'm not religious, so I won't get into scripture. My one question for the anti-abortion crowd is why is the life of a mother worth less than an unborn child?
DeleteThanks so much for the whole, but perhaps especially for the ending. Moderate critics of the GOP do often want to remind them that this is bad politics to play to supposed grounds for moderation on their part as well. But no, they can't square the circle.
ReplyDeleteKevin Drum was especially egregious this week in pulling a compromise position of his own out of a hat and then wondering whether both sides can't accept it. In effect, he's blaming liberal absolutism for a conservative resistance. Shame on him. In fact, he bases his compromise on a suggestion by Senator Graham that all sides accept a ban after 15 weeks into term with the addition (which Kevin does not favor, to be fair) that red states could still enact stricter bans. In other words, blue states would have to enact stricter laws (as if Roe v Wade already hadn't had a sense of viability it could accept), while red states would not have to compromise in the least.
And another way things get dicey if life begins at conception: When does that fetal-but-fully-human life end in the event an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage? Must a pregnancy certain to kill or maim be carried as long as possible? Or a placental abruption starving a fetal brain of oxygen and leaving the pregnant person hemorrhaging? Will every fetus showing no signs of life be required to deliver naturally or by C-section only as the parent's life is at imminent risk?
ReplyDeleteThe legal side could be just as messy. Will grandparents-to-be have rights to sue for custody of a "person" not expected to take their first breath for 20+ weeks? Or demand burial rights?
Excellent article, but In the same way that the judge obfuscates using unborn human, I believe you have fallen into a similar obfuscation by repeating the canard "when life begins". This implies killing life which is obviously bad. A better approach is to refer to legal rights. Obviously sperm are alive, but we assign them no rights. Then the question becomes at what point should we assign the right to protection of life to that living growing collection of cells and with what exceptions?
ReplyDeleteB.S in Biology here. There are plus trillions of single cell organisms living with us even in us. There are plus trillions of grass seeds rotting away upon inhospitable ground, uneaten even by the birds. Or maybe springing to life by gental rains and warming sun only to shrivel and die as the rains move on.
DeleteWho is to decide, science or religion. I was born dead, baptized and then brought to life by a science steeped nurse. I love my Catholic faith but it doesn't have to use facts for decisions. I'm on Sciences side unless you want me to do the killing.