Abortion. It’s a
heated topic in most years and a red hot topic during presidential election
years. There are common misconceptions
about laws surrounding abortion, so sometimes it is good to step back and look
at the issues.
Roe v Wade: In this landmark
case, the Supreme Court ruled that a women’s right to privacy extends to making
decisions about her fetus – including the right to have an abortion. The right is completely autonomous in the
first trimester and then states have limited rights to restrict during the
second and third trimester. (Third
trimester abortions are illegal in most states). The case also granted the states the right to
place other restrictions, such as parental consent for minors. The key issue in Roe v. Wade is privacy – not
the legality or moral implications of abortion.
Conscience Clause: This federal regulatory law allows
healthcare facilities and healthcare professionals to opt out of procedures
that they find morally questionable. To
this end, most healthcare facilities with Catholic affiliation will not perform
sterilization procedures or abortions.
Because this is a regulatory law, it can change when we have a federal
administration change. For example,
during the Bush administration, the Conscience Clause included pharmacists and
allowed them to refuse to fill morning after pill prescriptions. When Obama was elected, his administration
removed that component because they felt it put an undue burden on patients
seeking that contraceptive alternative.
States have the ability to expand the conscience clause allowances (see
resource below).
These issues will most likely be touched upon in upcoming
presidential debates. One of the key
issues centers on the fact that the next president will appoint at least one new
Supreme Court Justice, and likely several others, during his/her tenure. The thought from both sides is to promote a
Justice who supports their side: Pro-life vs Pro-choice. However, the history books have shown that
the issue is not really the sanctity of life.
It is allowing patients the right to make private decisions about their
healthcare options. Just as in Montana
vs. Baxter, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual’s right to privacy
extends to the right to die with dignity.
The right to privacy is as precious to U.S. citizens as the right to
free speech. It is unlikely that any
sworn protector of the Constitution would feel otherwise.
References:
Roe v. Wade: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18
Conscience Clause: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/spibs/spib_RPHS.pdf
Montana v Baxter: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/health-law/health-law-keyed-to-furrow/medically-assisted-dying/baxter-v-montana/
No comments:
Post a Comment