With some trepidation but on the theory that it often makes
sense to try to understand positions taken by those with whom one has deep
disagreements, here’s my stab at the claims that my side would allow killing
infants after very late term or post-birth “abortions.” My side responds that
such actions are clearly infanticide in the latter instance and are probably infanticide
in the former as well if the fetus/infant is “viable”—and are unlawful
everywhere.
Roe clearly allows states to substantially restrict the
availability of very late term abortions, etc., but it doesn’t require that
they do so. Some of the proposals to protect the right to choose, opponents
say, would allow such abortions/procedures. (I note that proposals to “restore Roe”
wouldn’t in themselves do so. But, I’m reasonably sure that most supporters of “restore
Roe” legislation have more than Roe in mind because, for example,
such supporters want to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which according to the
Supreme Court is compatible with Roe. And some supporters of “restore Roe”
legislation would almost certainly press for expansive interpretations after
enactment—including an interpretation that would require the state to allow very
late term abortions. But what “restore Roe” means isn’t my
concern here.)
The question then is, what do those proposals say about the
treatment of the infant afterwards? Opponents refer to former Virginia governor
Ralph Northam’s statement that “a discussion would then ensue between the
physicians and the mother.” I think the most sensible interpretation of Northam’s
statement, one that he later sort of confirmed, is that actions taken with
respect to the infant would have to meet the medical standard of care required
in the circumstances. Sometimes that standard of care would require substantial
efforts to sustain the infant’s life; sometimes it would be, “let nature take
its course”; and sometimes—I suspect rarely—the standard of care would allow
doctors to take active measures that would have the effect of ending the infant’s
life (the equivalent to the standard of care applicable to end-of-life treatment
of anyone else). The bottom line, then, is that the “post-birth abortion”
argument is actually about euthanasia: “Killing babies” is the rhetorical
equivalent of “killing Grandma.” And serious arguments for and against allowing
euthanasia are typically pretty complicated and nuanced.
In today’s political climate I don’t think we can expect arguments
(about anything, really) to be developed with any degree of nuance, and so—to
be clear—I’m comfortable with the response in daily political rhetoric from my
side that no state permits infanticide. But there’s more substance to the other
side’s arguments than that rhetorical dismissal suggests.
@font-face
{:”Cambria Math”;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face
{:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-469750017 -1040178053 9 0 511 0;}@font-face
{:”Century Schoolbook”;
panose-1:2 4 6 4 5 5 5 2 3 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 0 0 0 159 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
:12.0pt;
:”Century Schoolbook”,serif;
mso-fareast-:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-:””;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
:”Century Schoolbook”,serif;
mso-ascii-:”Century Schoolbook”;
mso-fareast-:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-:”Century Schoolbook”;
mso-bidi-:””;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}