Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (4 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment

OpEdNews Op Eds

The Abortion Wars: Opening a Second Front

By       Message Steven Jonas     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 1   Supported 1   Interesting 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 4/1/13

Author 50778
Become a Fan
  (15 fans)
- Advertisement -

During the Second World War, almost from the time the United States entered the war on December 8, 1941, the Soviet Union, which had been invaded by Nazi Germany on June 22, 1941, was demanding that the United States and Great Britain establish a "Second Front" in Western Europe. By this the Soviets meant doing so by invading Occupied France on its Northwest Coast. The Western Allies did invade North Africa in November 1942, and Sicily and Southern Italy in the summer of 1943. But the major offensive in the West, which would require that the Germans move major forces from the Eastern Front to France, was not, as is well known, undertaken until June 6, 1944.

The Abortion Wars in this country have been underway since well before the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was handed down on January 22, 1973. That decision established that freedom of choice in the outcome of pregnancy was the Constitutional right of any pregnant woman, under the right to privacy subsumed by the Court to be in accordance with the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (1). The only limitation placed by the Court in Roe and subsequent decisions was that this right was a pregnant woman's without limitation, until the "time of fetal viability" (that is the ability of a fetus to live independently with the usual support provided to newborns, outside of the womb, generally considered to occur at about the 24th week of pregnancy).

(While the Court explicitly rejected the argument, I feel that this personal freedom is also supported by the Ninth Amendment, to wit: " The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be con­strued to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Ambiguous? Interpretable? Oh yes, and that was exactly the original intent [Justice Scalia] of the Founding Fathers. They built into the Constitution, throughout the document, beginning with the Preamble [2], a good deal of ambiguity and thus interpretability when it came to personal rights and liberties. No wonder Robert Bork, the ultimate so-called "originalist," once described the Ninth an "as inkblot on the Constitution.")

Since the time of Roe v. Wade, the Pro-choice movement has pursued a strategy that has three major elements. One is that it has focused almost entirely on the choice issue. The second is that from the beginning its promotion of that element has been primarily court-based. The third is a major emphasis on the provision of contraception and birth-control services to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion. (This is, of course, something the so-called "pro-life" movement just ignores, other when it is not completely opposed to the availability of such services, revealing its essential sexism, misogyny, and male chauvinism).

What political organizing that has been done on the pro-choice side from time-to-time has been primarily in response to what the anti-choice forces have been doing. Indeed, the Republican Religious Right has been ramping up the political assault on abortion rights for years. Their political strategy has been three-fold. One has been focused on gaining control of state governments in order to enact anti-abortion rights laws per se. The second (see for example recent actions taken by state governments in Arkansas [3] and North Dakota [4]) has been aimed at getting the issue back to the Supreme Court where they would hope, given the Catholic-dominated, who cares about stare decisis, right-wing majority, to achieve reversal of Roe v. Wade. Third, they envision the total criminalization of abortion through both state and national Constitutional "origin of life" amendments.

It is proposed here to broaden the battle on behalf of freedom of choice in the outcome of pregnancy, opening a "second front" in the war, using the issue of religious determinism/authoritarianism. This would make the battle everyone's, not just women's. This is not to say that this issue has not been raised. It certainly has been, from time-to-time (like the North African and Southern Europe invasions). It is to say that it's time for its full force to be brought to bear, on the equivalent of the beaches at Normandy. "When life begins" is a religious (and philosophical/ethical, for us atheists) concept, not a scientific one.

On GOP pseudo-science, concerning the criminalization-of-abortion issue, there is, for example, the fake "libertarian" (Dr.) Rand Paul saying that it's a scientific fact that life begins at the moment of conception and thus abortion should be re-criminalized. Speaking as a physician myself, I wonder what medical school he went to, or maybe he just wasn't paying much attention during his obstetrics clerkship. No, Rand, it is not a scientific fact that life begins at the moment of conception, any more than, Todd (Akin), women when raped have some sort of built-in magical contraceptive mechanism.   The first is a religious notion, the second, pure fantasy.

In fact, on the religious side, great Catholic theologians, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas themselves, did not believe that the soul (which, they felt, upon its arrival in the fetus indicated that "life" had begun) was present in the embryo from the moment of conception, but that it arrived somewhat later (5). "Later" was usually defined by them as the time of "quickening," which occurs some time on the 2nd trimester. So early abortion was OK for Catholics. That is until it happened to be declared not OK by Pope Pius IX in 1869 (he who also delivered to Catholics the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the concept of the Virgin Birth).

- Advertisement -

That the matter of abortion-rights is a first and foremost a religious question is the key point that the "pro-choice" movement has not used to anywhere near its fullest extent all of these years. It is a matter of a woman's choice, of course. But in their drive to criminalize such a choice the anti-choicers always proceed from a religious position, theirs, that "life begins at the moment of conception." What our side has missed all of these years is that there is an equally valid religious belief (and an atheist/humanist belief as well) that life begins at the time of viability.

Thus what the GOP and the other so-called "anti-abortionists" really want to do is criminalize the religious belief of anyone who holds that life begins at the time of viability. Yes, folks, criminalize it. It is suggested here that we move to finally win the abortion wars, by adding to the very important principle of the "woman's right to choose" freedom of religion, as provided for in the First Amendment, and opposition to the religious authoritarianism/determinism of the Republican Religious Right.

Suddenly the issue would be expanded from one solely of women's rights (which I fully support) over what is happening to one's own body, to the one also of the rights of all of us to hold religious/ethical beliefs that are indeed within the mainstream of the broad population of the United States. Then, all of a sudden it would become everyone's issue, not just that of women. And it is. For if the GOP, the Republican Religious Right, can criminalize a set of beliefs on when life begins, one can just imagine what might come next. Why, perhaps, criminalizing the belief that the "one true God" is that of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not the one of the Book of Exodus (Moses), or the one of the Koran, or criminalizing the belief that there is none. That is a road we do not want to follow, do we?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References :

- Advertisement -

1. Wikipedia, "Roe v. Wade," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade .

2.   Jonas, S., " The Preamblers," http://blog.buzzflash.com/jonas/185 .

3. Eckholm, E., "Arkansas Adopts a Ban on Abortions After 12 Weeks," http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/us/arkansas-adopts-restrictive-abortion-law.html?emc=eta1&_r=0 .

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Well Said 1   Supported 1   Interesting 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

http://thepoliticaljunkies.org/
Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, MS, is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at the School of Medicine, Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 30 books on health policy, health and wellness, and sports and regular exercise. In (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Pope Francis and Change in the Roman Catholic Church

Limbaugh, Santorum, Sex, and the Origins of the Roman Catholic Church

Gay Marriage and the Constitution

The "Irrepressible Conflict" and the Coming Second Civil War

What the Gunners Want: What's in Rick Perry's Pocket, Unlimited

The Republican Party and the Separation of Church and State: Change Does Happen