Back to blog

Iowa passes one of the harshest abortion bills in America

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

guest-aanoaool

..."Harshest", "Brazen", "Regime", wow!.. Rich choice of words - But not rich enough to give the human victims killed through abortion a choice to decide whether they live or not.

jouris

The worst thing that has happened in the past century, for those who are pro-choice, was the decision in Roe v Wade.
.
Until then, abortion was gradually being legalized across the country. Legalization was supported by such noted raging liberal groups as . . . the Southern Baptist Convention. (Seriously, that was their official position on the subject.) In short without Roe, by the mid-80s abortion would have been legal across the country in all but a handful of counties -- much like Prohibition still lingers in a few counties to this day. Legal, and not particularly controversial.
.
Instead, it has become a culture-war litmus test for both sides. And both are the worse for it.

ashbird in reply to jouris

jouris, It does seem, or there is the appearance of such, that the same folks who are awfully concerned about a life encapsulated in a pea-size tissue do not feel the same about gunning down an unarmed 6 ft 250 lb man for the reason the person is in the wrong place at the wrong time, coloration taken into consideration. As well murdering at least 2 physicians and severely injuring some nurses in Planned Parenthood for the reason their work was in prenatal and pediatric medicine and family-planning and birth-control* education.
.
And full disclosure: I am not for abortion on demand, not that there is such a thing anywhere in US as "abortion on demand", including Planned Parenthood. The more comments you read on TE, the stranger they get.

ashbird in reply to ashbird

* Birth Control refers to ways to prevent the meeting of sperms and egg during coitus, an event in Biology 001 known as "fertilization".
.
The ways include use of condom (far from fool-proof but better than nothing), IUD, and pills. Some men in couples ask for vasectomy. Also, research is underway for a male contraceptive pill that is safe and effective. As in female contraceptive pills which works on female hormones, the male pill works on male hormones. And No, None of the 10 Commandments say Thou Shalt Not Use Birth Control Pill, though an 11th Commandment does say It's OK to covet another man's wife by grabbing her pussy because she likes it.

Tom Meadowcroft in reply to jouris

A corollary is that defeat of Roe v. Wade in the SCOTUS would be disastrous for the Republicans. Much of the public is queasy about full access to abortion, and supports making access somewhat difficult, because they don't want abortion to be used as routine birth control, but they don't want it illegal either. They support Republican efforts to limit abortions in a world where Roe v. Wade is accepted precedent. If Roe v. Wade were neutered, states like Iowa would be passing laws to totally outlaw abortions, a move which only about 30% of Americans support (30% support full and easy access, 40% are somewhere in between). No Roe v. Wade becomes a big reason to vote Democratic at the state and federal level.
.
You can see the same thing happening with gay marriage. Gay marriage was being gradually accepted around the country as a result of legislators and the general public coming around to the idea. Several state legislatures had voted to allow gay marriage, and New York state had passed a plebiscite in favor. Those votes allowed Obama and many others to come around, and more importantly, Republicans were switching to indifference when they saw that majorities were in favor, and this wasn't an issue where the cultural elite were ramming it down the throats of everyone else.
.
And then the cultural elite rammed it down everyone's throat with a case that was taken to the SCOTUS and won 5-4. Yes, gay marriage is widely accepted by young people and people in big cities, but there is a lingering resistance that is fed by the fact that the issue was settled in the courts. If 5 more years had gone by, 20-30 states would have passed gay marriage laws, and a supreme court ruling at that point would have just been finding a common standard. Even better, in ten years 40 states would be allowing gay marriage, and the rest would be embarrassed to be seen as so backwards.
.

ashbird in reply to Tom Meadowcroft

I see what you are saying.
.
Sometimes social change requires the intervention and plodding of courts. Examples are banning of smoking in public places, driving while intoxicated, making and possessing child pornography, etc.
.
To take and apply the premise of your rebuke exemplified by this statement: " the cultural elite rammed it down everyone's throat " to its logical conclusion, the Civil War in America should not have been fought, as normal changing of mind of folks will evolve with time, and, had there not been Abraham Lincoln, by 3010, racial discrimination would have burnt itself out.
.
In the case of gay marriage, at least one more generation of - take the average life span of 70 to 75 years - LGBT community would have to endure the discrimination which manifests as being treated as less than human beings, taunted, discriminated in the work place, denied employment, denied survival benefits in SSA, denied right to visit in hospitals in last days as family member of dying partner, in some cases, being beaten, for no other reason than being "not straight". You are asking these folks to wait and hold their breath while the injustice takes its time, by divine intervention, to cure itself. Do you not think you are asking for a little too much from the unjustly treated people?
.
And I still don't understand why you are pointing fingers at this amorphous ill-defined group you call the "cultural elite" ? Who re they??The people who do the discrimination? The people discriminated against? The people who hold their breadth to wait? The people who make other people hold their breath to wait? Or simply people who think different from you?

Tom Meadowcroft in reply to ashbird

I take issue with the idea that a group of rich men funding a legal team to argue in front of 9 justices is the gay community acting politically on its behalf, rather than waiting passively. The gay community acting on its own behalf was when it was out in force demonstrating and going door to door in support of initiatives and candidates who supported their views, in California, Massachusetts, New York and elsewhere. The court decision put an end to that political work, the political work which, by its public nature, and by showing gay people as normal Americans campaigning to live normal lives, was changing people's views of homosexuality. Bypassing politics by going through the courts not only angered the political opponents of gay marriage, it stopped the process that was bringing observers without any strong stake in the argument onto the side of a reasonable acceptance of not only gay marriage, but the normality of a gay presence in their community. By going through the supreme court, the issue is left froze in time as a narrow majority decision by the justices, rather than an evolving political issue which had vastly increased the level of acceptance of homosexuality in this country over the previous 10 years.
.
Relatively few gay people are getting married, but all gay people are affected by how homosexuality is accepted as a normal human trait. The largest difference that the campaign for gay marriage was making was not a marriage license and some advantageous tax laws for gay couples, but the ability for a gay couple to buy a house in suburbia and exist openly as a gay couple without harassment. That change in public sensibility is very hard to pull off, but it was happening as the campaign for gay marriage proceeded. I haven't seen nearly as much progress since the supreme court decided to preemptively end the debate.
.
The cultural elite are those whose voices, because of their presence in popular culture and their access to various forms of media, are amplified disproportionately, and thus have a disproportionate say in the topics of conversation, and the terms of that conversation. It would include anyone who appears on TV, radio, or in a newspaper, has a popular podcast or Youtube channel, or has a large following on social media. While there are voices on the right amongst the cultural elite by that definition, it is dominated by voices from the left. Amongst social conservatives, the perception is that gay marriage was forced on them by a former Democratic solicitor general and his legal team, funded by rich liberals, backed by vociferous support from the cultural elite, who took a case to the Supreme Court who by their presence in the political elite are greatly influenced by the cultural elite, and that court took away the public's right to decide what marriage meant. The social conservatives can safely ignore the shift of public opinion that was running strongly against them -- forever more gay marriage is another victory where the cultural elite stole the democratic rights and privileges of the average American through the expediency of the supreme court. And there's enough truth to that for that version of the story to stick. Just like it did with Roe v. Wade.

Houshu

Up to a point where society can safely remove a fetus from a woman's care and nurture, it is woman's right to choose. That 'point' shall be determined by medical science, not by the deplorable and their elected and equally deplorable officials.

Tom Meadowcroft in reply to Houshu

Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, questions of life and death are too important to be left to "medical science". It's a moral and ethical issue, not a question of chemistry and biology. If you want a biological answer as to when does a unique life begin, the answer is at the moment of conception when the two sources of DNA combine. That is the Catholic church's position, which is perfectly consistent with science.
.
Personally I don't value a few genetically unique cells in a uterus highly, but I do view a fetus a week from normal birth as essentially a full human. I also don't think you can have a society where women are free to get an education, start a career, and not marry until 30, without a variety of ways to avoid undesired pregnancy. Where to draw a line? Whose rights dominate, and when? People are going to make different judgments on when a fetus is human enough to protect like a full human, and medical science can only give us facts, not answers. It's an entirely appropriate question to be argued by a legislature, or put to a vote of the public. We can't rely on doctors or judges to make all of the tough moral and ethical decisions in our society. That's an abdication of our responsibilities as citizens of a republic.

Houshu in reply to Tom Meadowcroft

Life begins when an organism becomes independent of a particular host. Parasite is alive because its survival does not depend on a particular host organism. Fetus caesar was alive before 'normal' birth because it was safely removed from a particular hostess.
.
Catholic church's position is not universal. Chinese paganism's position, for example, is that life begins with live birth. Legend is full of stories of "archangels deliver important souls to worthy women ready to give birth"....
.
"Blessed are the Chinese Archangels, for they are not tasked to be the soothsayers for the cuckold husbands" --- from a fortune cookie, or ought to be.

Tom Meadowcroft in reply to Houshu

Yes, there's lots of science, and yours is correct. My point is that knowing the science doesn't settle the philosophical and moral question of when life begins, and in particular when it should be protected with the full force of the state. It's a question of interpretation and conflicting claims to rights and obligations. "Medical Science" merely clarified some of the bio-chemistry. It does not answer the question of the timing of whether and when abortion, or for that matter birth control or infanticide, is right or wrong.

ashbird in reply to Tom Meadowcroft

".....but I do view a fetus a week from normal birth as essentially a full human".
.
Actually, current medical science has firmly established a fetus at 24 week, not a week, from full term of 36 weeks , is a full human, "full human" defined as "viable life". The concept and term is in Roe v Wade. The particulars of the Roe v Wade Ruling can be googled. They are very specific.
.
As far as medical science is concerned, "viable life" will more likely to move in the direction of earlier, no differently from its is moving life expectancy longer, not earlier.
.
I agree medical science can only give us medical facts , and no more, as the facts are known by the latest advances. It cannot usurp the domain of human choices, which, in my personal view, is in the hands of, in the case of physical assisted dying, the dying, in the hands of of birth control and family planning, in the hands of the mother and father who form the unit of a family.
.
Lastly, abortion as a means of birth control is an abuse of the means availed by medical science and is WRONG. There are cases where abortion is advised by medical science - as in ultrasound obtained at week 20 that shows a fetus with a hollow brain (the baby will be born with hollow brain), or an entire alimentary canal from oesophagus to rectum missing, or a alcohol-pickled fetus going through withdrawal symptoms, i.e., seizures, inside the womb, or a crack baby which following birth, will remain hooked on crack. The decision whether to abort these fetuses lies with the mother, NOT the physician. Todate, no physician has been known to "force" an abortion on an expectant mother. Nor will they ever. If they do, the patient can take them to court.

Houshu in reply to Tom Meadowcroft

You are correct that science can not answer moral or religious questions. That's why a honest pro-lifer should not twist science to be 'consistent with church teachings', but state outright that 'abortions, even spontaneous ones, are damnable', sort of 'God wills it!' type of righteous proclamation.

Tom Meadowcroft in reply to Houshu

As is the case with many political issues, you can cherry-pick scientific facts to support many different views. That's the sort of strategy that is used to cloud climate science debates, and it works when debating abortion too. The climate science debate is unavoidably mostly about science, though, which is why public opinion is gradually shifting to acceptance of the generally accepted science. While there is science that bears on the question of abortion, though, it is not primarily a debate about science. It is a debate about the definition of life, and the rights of a fetus vs. the rights of a mother, and where it is appropriate for the state to intrude. Science will answer almost all of the questions about climate science, but abortion rights will remain primarily a question of morality, ethics, and philosophy. I have a big name graduate degree in science, and I'll defer to science and data whenever I can to make a decision. But science and data can't fully answer questions like "What is a person?" and never will.

Houshu in reply to Tom Meadowcroft

The question 'what is a person?' is a metaphysical question, just like the question of 'what is a poem?', both can not be answered by science. On the other hand, question of 'what is a human?' is, or should be, a well-defined science question, and deserves honest and scientific answer, --- in my humble opinion, of course.

TJRectenwald

Abortion "rights"? The article is hopelessly misleading. Not even Roe v. Wade proclaimed any such thing. On the other hand, Roe did not limit abortion to twenty-four weeks, but rather included vague language about exceptions that virtually instituted abortion on demand.

Hominem te memento

"John Roberts, the chief justice, is no fan of abortion and has voted.."
.
Who is a fan of abortion? The right to have an abortion is at debate here not the severity and the appalling nature of the act - at least I hope.
.
Its important with subjects like these - pure lightning rods of attention - to choose words more carefully especially if your business is words.