My representative in Congress sent an email letter to his constituents expressing dismay over a recent Supreme Court decision. "Defense of life is the most important moral issue of our time," wrote Rep. Steve Pearce of New Mexico's second congressional district, "And we can never speak too strongly for those that cannot speak for themselves."
Alas, he wasn't writing on behalf of those killed in our expansive wars around the world or the victims of austerity policies squeezing families during hard times, but about all these darn womenfolk who insist on exercising their constitutional right to abort a pregnancy or access other health services offered by clinics that perform abortions. Pearce was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt last week. It is, to be sure, a blow to the progress of those who would control women.
Pardon me if I dispense with the "pro-life" verbiage and get right to the heart of the matter: this is about controlling women. So long as we punish the poor, poison the environment, execute prisoners and citizens on the streets who never get a trial, and send generations off to fight in perpetual warfare, I decline to pretend this is a humanitarian struggle for human life as a fundamental value. There is not a single member of Congress, and I'll wager the same is true in state legislatures, who consistently embodies a pro-life position; but there are plenty who wish to control a woman's choice over reproduction and legislate her conscience, even if it means sacrificing local and affordable health care services other than abortion. This is what happens when women's health clinics are shut down.
For those who would control women, the Supreme Court's ruling in Whole Woman's Health is a bad blow, though it will not end the fight. The ruling called hooey on "TRAP laws," the acronym for "targeted regulation of abortion providers," as a means of legislating clinics out of existence. TRAP laws such as the one struck down in Texas set up unaffordable mandates, including requirements that clinics be rebuilt to the architectural specifications followed by hospitals and surgical centers, even if the clinic simply prescribed abortion pills without surgical procedures. Perversely, these laws were presented as measures for the protection of women's health.
In a wrathful concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg exposed this knavery for the racket that it is. "It is beyond rational belief that [Texas's TRAP law] could genuinely protect the health of women...When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux [lacking a better option], at great risk to their health and safety." As well, when clinics offering affordable care in poorer communities are forced to shut down by those who would control women, women's health (including that of expecting mothers) is being attacked, not protected.
For a while, these laws did just what they were intended to do: shut down women's health clinics, especially in impoverished areas, setting up obstacles not only to abortion procedures but other medical care. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists both stated that these regulations have no medical basis. Those who would control women, and could not get their way by legitimate persuasion and straightforward politics, got a lot of mileage out of this legal hornswoggle but the Supreme Court has said, "Enough."
For the record, Congressman Pearce is disappointed about that.
--
Algernon D'Ammassa writes the Desert Sage column for the Deming Headlight and Sun News papers. Write to him at DesertSageMail@gmail.com