If allowed, should Louisiana make it a felony for a woman to have an abortion in our State?
As we know, in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe and thereby made it illegal for states to completely ban abortion. At the time, there were 33 states that banned abortions in all cases; 4 allowed unrestricted abortions and 14 allowed abortions, but with some restrictions. This outraged many Christians and the Republicans astutely captured a large and active segment of the electorate by pledging to get Roe V Wade overturned.
One of the main reasons that Donald Trump won such a large percentage of the Evangelical Christian vote was because he pledged to nominate SCOTUS justices who would vote to overturn RvW and, to his credit, the two justices he has gotten appointed may well rule that way if given the chance. With the passing of RBG, he will get a third justice on the Court. Those three justices plus Justices Thomas and Alito make it conceivable that RvW will be overturned. The topic of discussion assumes that five justices do in fact rule to overturn RvW.
Now what? Should Louisiana make it a felony for a woman to have an abortion in the State?
Let me begin by saying that I believe that aborting an unborn child is wrong. In every case, whether the child is known to have birth defects, is the product of rape or incest or even if the mother’s life may be put at risk if the child is not aborted, I believe it would be overall best if the child is allowed to live and if unwanted by the mother and/or father, is adopted by others who are willing and able to care for the child. That would be the “Ideal” and I would be willing to bet that a great majority of Democrats would say the same thing. Very few people are so heartless and deranged that they want to see children killed in the womb.
But, achieving the “Ideal” in the real and fallen world in which we all live is not possible. God has imbued human beings with a very strong desire to copulate. Would have been great if this desire was only aroused once two people are married and ready, willing and able to bear and raise children. As we know, the powerful drive to have sex does not confine itself to happily married couples desiring children – it is omnipresent and, if anything, its allure is enhanced for those outside of marriage to whom the opportunity presents itself. So, day in and day out, a whole lot of folks who definitely don’t want to create babies, engage in sex which I will term as “recreational copulation”. . And as a result, a whole lot of unwanted babies get conceived and the female partner suddenly finds herself with a crisis pregnancy. So, what should we as a society do about this phenomenon and its undesirable consequences?
POINTS & COUNTERPOINTS:
Point 1: Don’t Criminalize Women for Abortions.
I do not think that, if given the opportunity to do so, Louisiana should make it a crime for a woman to have an abortion during the early term of her pregnancy. However, I am ok with making it illegal to abort the fetus toward the end of the pregnancy. Louisiana currently restricts abortion clinics to performing abortions only up to 25 weeks. I think that is reasonable. If the woman has not figured out what to do by then – abort or carry to term – then she will have to go out of state to find a clinic where she can get a legal late term abortion.
I do not dispute that if Louisiana bans abortions outright, the number of abortions that occur inside the borders of the state will decline. But I want you to think of the practical ramifications from this. Keep in mind that only 20% of Americans are in favor of banning abortion outright. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
So, we would be one of a very few, if not the only state in the nation to ban abortions outright. Women in Louisiana with crisis pregnancies would be viewed by “pro-choice” advocates around the nation as being victims in need of being rescued. I would expect there would be free services provided which would transport them to other states where abortions are legal, and they may well pay for all of the other costs. So, the actual number of babies conceived in Louisiana that are aborted would be reduced little, if at all, as a result of the ban. And is not reducing the number of abortions our objective here?
Now think of the negative consequences that the enactment of this ban will cause. Let’s begin by recognizing that some women may choose to break the law and get an abortion in Louisiana even though it is illegal. I assume that this will be a felony offense – after all, she was complicit in the taking of an innocent human life, which is murder, premeditated no less. That means, then, that she will be subject to being arrested, charged with a felony and if convicted, punished by the state which almost certainly mean prison time. Can you envision the media coverage that will result?
We can gain a glimpse of what will happen by considering North Carolina’s experience with enacting the “Bathroom Bill” relating to transgender students. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/30/north-carolina-lawmakers-say-theyve-agreed-on-a-deal-to-repeal-the-bathroom-bill/. There was a huge furor in the national press. Shortly after the bill was passed, the NCAA announced there would be no more tournaments in NC until the law was overturned. A number of socially conscious companies announced they would pull out of NC. The estimated cost to the state was $3.7 Billion. When it came down to sports and money versus a Culture War victory, NC caved and repealed the Bathroom Bill.
The banning of abortions and criminalizing of women by an individual state will be much more consequential than passing the Bathroom Bill. Again, 80% of Americans do not want abortion banned outright. Should Louisiana do this, board members of institutions and businesses throughout America and throughout the world will be forced to retaliate. The threats faced by NC will pale to what we will suffer if we dare to ban all abortions. There will be no amount of new tax give-aways that our state could offer that will attract new businesses to come to LA.
I maintain that the last thing we really want is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade. No doubt, there will be a huge emotional appeal to ban abortion outright should this occur. But knowing what consequences will result should we do so will put us in the same fix the dog would face who finally has the opportunity to catch the bus he has been chasing. It will be devastating.
In the end, should we initially enact the ban and criminalize women, pressure and common sense will prevail and we will relent after much anger, pain and loss of stature. Instead, we should continue to focus on regulating abortion clinics in the state so that they cease abortions after 25 weeks and leave the women alone.
Counterpoint 1: Do Criminalize Women for Abortions.
If Roe V Wade is overturned, Louisiana should make it a felony for a woman to have an abortion in our state.
Louisiana will not need to pass a law to ban abortion if Roe V Wade is overturned; that law is already in effect. And we are not the only state – there are seven states where abortion will automatically be illegal if R V W is overturned. https://www.businessinsider.com/abortion-access-in-america-maps-charts-if-roe-falls-2018-8#the-latest-stage-of-pregnancy-at-which-a-patient-can-obtain-an-abortion-in-every-us-state-2019-1. There are 10 other states where it will simply require the attorney general or legislature to re-enforce the ban or will simply require a court order.
Not on that list is Georgia. In May 2019, it passed HB 481. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/hb-481-georgia-law-criminalizes-abortion-subjects-women-to-life-in-prison.html
HB 481 makes it illegal for a woman to have an abortion after embryonic or fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which is at about 6 weeks. And that law specifically addresses the question of criminalizing abortion for the women who have them. It explicitly does just that. According to the article, a woman who seeks out an illegal abortion would be party to a murder and subject to life in prison.
I do not agree with you that the whole issue here is about reducing the number of abortions. Clearly, that is something we expect will happen if we make abortions illegal. But this is not just about numbers of abortions – it is about right and wrong.
In your point you say that it is wrong for a woman to have an abortion but since we don’t live in an ideal world it is somehow OK to allow this. Speeding is wrong. Abortion is much more than just “wrong”. It is the taking of an innocent human life – actually the most innocent of all humans – a tiny child resting inside his or her mother’s womb. If we as a society are not willing to do everything that we can to protect that little person, then what does that say about us as a society? That we are OK with sacrificing our children on the alter of convenience? When a woman makes the decision to end the life of the little person who is currently residing inside her womb and then carries this out – that is premeditated murder. No way you can call it anything other than that. How could that not be a felony? If it is a felony, one that used to be a capital offense, how can the state not hold her accountable for this? No matter what other people think about us or do to us, it would be morally very wrong for us not to make it illegal to destroy that innocent little person.
If allowed, Louisiana should absolutely make it a felony for a woman to have an abortion in our State.
Point 2: Don’t Criminalize Women for Abortions.
I hate discussing abortion because I know full well that it is the taking of an innocent human life. No doubt there is a congruity and a moral satisfaction that will come for those of us who clearly know it’s murder to unequivocally declare by the force of law that abortions are illegal and our state is one that will not sanction this within its borders.
But people are going to continue to participate in recreational copulation and continue to conceive unwanted babies. The number of Americans who believe abortions should be legal has steadily climbed since RvW to the point where four out of five hold this view. It is one thing to have a latent law languishing on the books saying that abortion will be banned if RvW is overturned; it is an entirely different matter implementing such a law when most people will not want it enforced. Keep in mind, the discussion is about criminalizing the women who get the abortion which would mean sending them to prison. You know that when all the dust settles, we are not going to do that. And what’s more, it is not the most effective way to accomplish what should be the real goal here: to reduce the number of abortions. To reduce abortions, we need to: #1. Reduce the number of conceptions that occur when babies aren’t wanted and #2. Increase the number of women who conceive to decide they will bring the child to term.
Birth Control. There was a time when government attempted to minimize out of wedlock copulating by censoring movies and other media. Unfortunately, those days are gone. Fortunately the days of the Church (especially Catholic) forbidding birth control is also passed. What can we do now as a society to minimize the conception rate per recreational copulation? We have made a lot of progress in this regard over the past half century and this is one of the main reasons the abortion rate has fallen to nearly half of what it was in 1990. In our health care debates, we need to ensure that birth control is made as accessible and affordable as possible. There is already government funding for birth control for low income people.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/health-care-equity/title-x#:~:text=More%20than%20four%20million%20people,care%20services%20on%20their%20own
You will note that the link here is to Planned Parenthood, which is so demonized by pro life advocates because they provide abortion services. However, PP is one of the most effective providers of conception-preventing birth control in America -which is what we all want. Helping PP and other such clinics expand this type birth control is something we can and should do more of.
Increasing “wantedness”. By me having two children with their own young children, I have been reminded what a huge burden having babies and raising them is. It is very expensive and disruptive. Unlike the days of Leave it to Beaver, women today are required to leave home and go to work. We learn from this article: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2018/11/15/460970/understanding-true-cost-child-care-infants-toddlers/ “On average, a family making the state median income would have to spend 18 percent of their income to cover the cost of child care for an infant, and 13 percent for a toddler.” That is for normal households. We are focused on women in a crisis pregnancy. Many are just barely getting by as it is – particularly if they already have one or more children. Adding an additional $8-$10,000 to their annual budget is just overwhelming. If we as a society want more women with crisis pregnancies to want to bring their unborn children to term, then we need to come alongside them such that they believe that they can get through this and that their child will have a good life. If the perspective is that he will be in a gang and end up in prison, then why not end it now and save all the expense and misery?
That is why I think one of the best investments we can make as a society is in programs such as the LA B-3. It is designed to provide excellent early childcare and education to children during their most formative years. https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/early-childhood/funding-our-future—la-b-to-3-commission-report-addendum-(jan-2020).pdf?sfvrsn=b69e9b1f_2 The program is fairly expensive and will require additional tax revenues to fund, but it should reduce the number of abortions somewhat and it will increase the chances that Louisiana infants will become good citizens.
Let me summarize my key points:
- Despite what SCOTUS rules, the vast majority (80%) of Americans want abortions to remain legal – to some degree. Most are OK with continuing to have some restrictions. Very few want to see women go to prison for having had an abortion.
- At present, Louisiana restricts abortions to the early stages of pregnancy by being able to regulate legal abortion clinics. If Louisiana insists on banning abortions completely and criminalizing women who have abortions, the state will lose the ability to regulate legal early term abortions.
- Think of what would happen if Louisiana actually convicts women for having abortions and puts them in prison. For half a century, abortions have been legal. Our state would be viewed as being controlled by The Cajun Taliban. Institutions and businesses from across the country would treat us as a pariah. We would eventually be forced to relent just as North Carolina did on the “bathroom bill”. Let’s wisely not put ourselves through such a contentious ordeal.
- Rather, let’s focus our time, energy and resources on doing other things that will result in a further reduction in the number of abortions. Let’s take some comfort in recognizing that we have already made significant progress. In the early ‘90’s over one in three babies was being aborted; it is now less than one in five. With more expansive birth control measures and more effective programs to help women care for their children, the abortion rate should continue to fall.
Counterpoint 2: Do Criminalize Women for Abortions
In your second point, you say that you believe that abortion is wrong and you even recognize that it is what it is: murder. And yet you object to making it a crime. Also, you act is if there are only two options available to women who are facing a crisis pregnancy: abortion or bearing and raising the child. There is another VERY viable option that you have not addressed: Adoption.
Right now, there are over 2 million couples in the US waiting to adopt a new baby. https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families#:~:text=Some%20sources%20estimate%20that%20there,who%20is%20placed%20for%20adoption. Some have been waiting for years. But because so many American babies are being aborted, adopting couples are having to go to other countries to find children.
I am not advocating forcing women to have children and then be unable to raise them. If they lack the resources, they can put them up for adoption. This would be a very good thing – much better than them having the child, start raising him and fail so badly that the child is taken by child protection services and put into the foster program. The state should make it absolutely clear that given the options of (A) murdering their child or (B) allowing the child to go to a loving family that can care for him, they should always choose B. And there is no better way to do this than to make Option A highly illegal and Option B one that is attended by support and rewards.
I do not agree with your proposal for unlimited expansion of birth control to the point that every female capable of conceiving can get on the pill. Especially if Planned Parenthood is the medium for doing this. As a society we need to go back to saying certain behavior is unacceptable – particularly for teenagers. Are you proposing that the school nurse dispense contraceptives to middle and high schoolers? Think of the message that this would be sending: “As grownups, we expect that all of you will go out and copulate like rabbits. So, take or wear this so that you don’t get pregnant when you are doing it.” That is a very bad idea.
People say that you can’t legislate morality. Well, by not saying certain things are right and other things are wrong, we are encouraging immorality. The best contraceptive by far is abstinence. We should do everything we can to encourage abstinence. And we should use the full power of the state to steer women in crisis pregnancies away from abortion and to adoption. And that includes making it a felony to choose the former.
We do agree on one thing, though. The LA B-3 Program appears to be a really good one that should prove to be a good investment for the citizens of our state. And if to fund it, our only option is to increase taxes a little bit, I would be open to that.
Another Point made by a FB Friend – Rob Treppendahl
Conservatives have staked out the moral high ground by claiming to be “Pro Life”. But their prolife defense usually only applies to the unborn. Once the child has exited the womb and taken his first breath and he is no longer “unborn”, then he is no longer deserving on many prolife advocates of care and concern. This perspective was made exceptionally well by an Pastor Dave Barnhart, a Methodist minister in Alabama.
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
This is a link to his post: https://www.facebook.com/dave.barnhart/posts/10156549406811031