To a person who in general - or perhaps even very strongly - opposes abortion, Personhood legislation may sound like an idea to support, a way to shut down the availability of abortions in the United States for good. But there are many other issues, questions, and potential problems besides abortion related to enacting such legislation which should be considered as well. Have you thought about each of these points before jumping on the Personhood "bandwagon", even if you consider yourself "pro-life"?
1. Personhood legislation could criminalize routine health care procedures for women.
In 2011, Mississippi doctors spoke up in opposition to the state's ballot initiative for Personhood, stating that it could seriously hamper their ability to provide routine and even life saving care to their patients, in cases such as ectopic and molar pregnancies. And what about the ability to perform diagnostic procedures such as amniocentesis, which carries a small risk of miscarriage?
2. No exceptions for rape victims - you MUST carry the baby to term.
Personhood legislation carries no exceptions for allowing rape victims to have an abortion in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape. They would not even be allowed access to the "morning after pill". Of course, given that Red. Todd Akin doesn't think "legitimate rape" can result in pregnancy, is it any surprise he is one of the sponsors of personhood legislation?
3. Personhood laws could limit couples' access to fertility treatment, particularly IVF.
RESOLVE, the National Infertility Association, has compiled a lengthy list of questions about Personhood legislation and the effect it could have on women seeking fertility treatments, particularly when In Vitro Fertilization is required. As their page states, "if microscopic fertilized eggs/embryos are full humans, anything that puts an embryo at risk could be a criminal violation, even if its goal is the undeniable social good of helping someone have a baby."
4. Personhood could prevent pregnant women suffering from cancer from receiving lifesaving treatments.
If Personhood legislation passed, a doctor could become unable to provide care such as chemotherapy to a pregnant cancer victim, because the treatment could harm the fetus. The fetus' potential chance of life would be given precedence over the adult woman's ability to fight cancer. Such situations have already occurred in other countries, such as when a pregnant teenager died in the Dominican Republic because the country's abortion ban delayed her chemo treatment until it was too late.
5. Women who suffer stillbirths or miscarriages could potentially be prosecuted for homicide under Personhood laws.
Women are already being prosecuted under expanding homicide laws if their actions are suspected in any way to have caused the loss of an unborn child. Women are increasingly being treated like "baby making machines" in this country, with their own rights & protections under law at risk if they even potentially might be pregnant. How long before all women of child-bearing age are forbidden from smoking, drinking or taking medications that could harm a fetus in case she might be pregnant?
6. Personhood would restrict access to hormonal birth control for women.
Concern has been raised - and only sometimes discussed with amendments necessary to allow exceptions, that Personhood laws could make illegal any form of birth control that could possibly be an abortifacient (induce an abortion). Some of these hormonal forms of birth control are used not even by women looking to prevent pregnancy, but to control severe pain and menstrual bleeding, fibroids or PCOS. And of course, say goodbye to the "Morning-After Pill".
A Potentially Fatal Accident in the Homeon 11/24/2018
Windsurfing Lessons on Montserrat: One of My Funniest—and Fondest—Travel Memorieson 11/20/2018
Christmas Ornaments Celebrating Rome, Italyon 11/12/2018
Philadelphia-Themed Christmas Ornamentson 11/09/2018
Comments
I also realize when I first updated/moved this page from its original publication (formerly at Squidoo), I left out a section on the reasons why Personhood was a dangerous movement, how even if you are "pro-life" it could potentially limit women's access to health care procedures that carry any potential threat to a baby (whether the woman is pregnant or not). How it could keep couples from receiving IVF treatment that would HELP them have a baby. How it could outlaw certain forms of contraception if, for instance, they work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. That section is now included.
"you can educate people to have more respect for life, but this is not just respect for life but also their own minds, bodies, and souls." - wonderfully put, Mira. I agree completely.
I agree with your comment. Over-regulation is seldom a good idea. After WWI, for instance, contraception was prohibited in France because they wanted to increase their population. We've come a long way but apparently there's still much we need to do in order to stop controlling people's bodies (and minds: I'm thinking of your example with the ultrasound). Okay, you can educate people to have more respect for life, but this is not just respect for life but also their own minds, bodies, and souls. As I said, it's a very difficult issue.
Mira, true, but as I stressed earlier in the discussion, no form of contraception is foolproof. What is ironic to me is how those who push "abstinence only" education in the US then turn around and complain about so many unmarried mothers on welfare and assistance. Maybe if they put more money into educating people about using contraception - and made it more affordable and accessible - there wouldn't be so many people struggling with the burden of more children than they can afford.
And there'd probably be far fewer abortions as well.
I do not believe abortion should be relied upon as a form of contraception, but I feel we need to give women the option and availability to have an abortion if contraception has failed them. Offer counseling, yes. Make sure they are aware of alternatives like adoption, yes. But if they are firm in their desire/need for an abortion, do not block their efforts to do so, which is becoming increasingly common in the U.S. in more religious/conservative states. (Forcing a woman to receive and look at an ultrasound before giving them an abortion, hoping to change her mind, for instance. To me that is nothing but cruel torture.)
There are many things which can increase our risks for cancer, breast or otherwise - including not having children at all, or having them later in life. I believe in personal freedom more than over-regulation. Let people make choices with their own bodies if they can and are willing to live with the potential consequences of those choices.
This is a very difficult issue, and one that won't be solved here, but I wanted to bring my own two cents to the table to clarify something I believe makes sense regarding abortion and breast cancer. If you've never had a child and have an abortion, the milk glands in your breasts start to form and then the process is stopped abruptly. So you're left with an increased chance of breast cancer. Of course I know people who have had said abortion and are fine, but it's definitely something to think about. Not in terms of having an abortion or not but in terms of contraception, as Veronica said.
"I merely pointed out that potential death does not always result in maternal death and abortion is linked to breast cancer."
Of course potential death does not always result in actual death. But neither does abortion always lead to breast cancer. In some cases abortion helps women who are at high risk for other diseases, already suffering from different forms of cancer. Everything must be balanced and each person deserves the right to make the choice they feel is best for their own health and future well being.
We can argue this to death because studies are always going to contradict each other depending on the agenda of the people promoting it. I am at higher risk for breast cancer because I never had a child - oh well. I wasn't about to run out and have a baby (even if I could) just to *potentially* lower my risk of a disease (if I even could have a child, but I can't.) I am at a higher risk of cancer because I drink alcohol occasionally - oh well. Choice I have made and I will live with it. New Jersey has a both higher cancer incidence rate and death rate than the national average. Am I going to move because of it? No.
I do indeed see the other woman's point of view. I haven't said you are wrong about abortion at all. In fact I have not come down against it. I merely pointed out that potential death does not always result in maternal death and abortion is linked to breast cancer.
I would like to see a proper analysis of data re women who die in childbirth and women who die as a result of an abortion. See which is highest. I think that contraception is very good. It does fail at times.
In 2010, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the U.S. National Cancer Institute who did not accept the breast cancer link previously, reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40 per cent.
Uncomfortable reading but there it is.
"Why would I save myself before a child?"
You have a strong maternal instinct. Not every woman does, nor needs to.
And it's clear your statistics all come from right-to-life advocates and not unbiased scientistific organizations. The American Cancer Society finds no link between abortion and breast cancer occurence. (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastca...)
The National Cancer Institute report that I found clearly states "They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer." (http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/ab...)
Besides, lots of people do things that may increase their risk for diseases. It's *their choice* to do so. Fertility treatment can raise one's chances of cancer. Having a baby over 30 can increase one's chance of breast cancer. Everything we do carries risks and rewards. For some who have no desire to have a child - who are physically, mentally, financially, or emotionally unequipped to have a child (even to carry it to term because of the physical and mental effects it could have on them), the "risks" of abortion are far less than what they would face carrying a baby to term.
But it is clear to me you have your agenda and cannot see any other point of view besides "Rights to babies first; who cares about the rights of a pregnant woman"?
1983 ; I had an hour to live when I was C sectioned in a bid to save the child's life. I said .. "save the baby, I'll die. Let him live." I was unconscious for a while after . But, we both pulled through eventually but I'd have sooner died myself. No problem with that. I'd had 26 years; he could have life not me. Why would I save myself before a child?
These women who "have an abortion to save their life " need to be informed that ;-
* every abortion a woman increases her risk of breast cancer 50%
* American National Cancer Institute study in Seattle, showed a clear link between having an abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer.
If the abortion was performed before age 18, the risk was increased by 150 %. If the woman was over 30 and had a family history of breast cancer the risk went up by 270%.
every woman in the survey who had an abortion before age 18 and had a family history of breast cancer developed breast cancer by the age of 45.
The doctors actually were on the family's side and argued to allow the termination to happen when in court. They were afraid to do so initially because of the constitutional law in Ireland which is pretty much the strictest in the world on anti-abortion. They couldn't perform a C section in that case because the foetus was not of viable age yet at only 16 weeks.