NC's anti-abortion bill scrutinized

Mother Jones pokes under this rock of a bill:

What's more interesting is what North Carolina's bill doesn't say. For example, it doesn't make any distinctions for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest. So a 16-year-old girl who's been impregnated by her stepfather would have to go through the same waiting period, and hear the same information about adoption, as any other woman. (Note: the bill defines "woman" as "a female human, whether or not she is an adult")

Hat-tip to underwoodchamp for the sweet Tweet.

The language of the legislation also demonstrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it's much more about painfully strained ideology than sound medical procedures:

Likewise the bill as passed by the House does not differentiate between causes for abortion. A woman who needs an abortion because the fetus has a congential defect that makes it incompatible with life outside the womb would be provided with a chance to hear its heart beat, and to see a sonogram, which sounds cruel, especially if it was a wanted pregnancy.

The bill also will not consider an abortion a "medical emergency" if it only affects the woman's psychological or emotional conditions, even if she is so distraught says she will kill herself (or try to get a back-alley procedure) if she cannot procure an legal abortion.

That's because, in the minds of many supposedly "moral" adults in our state, women are only valued for their ability to procreate and maintain a household.

Now, some of you reading this might view that "domestic bliss" scenario as normal or even something to be longed for. And that's cool. Been there, enjoyed the bliss, and I love my children more than mere words could convey. If I could go back in time and change some things, my first choice would be changing me, so I could enjoy and appreciate that life even more. But that's me.

I would never dream of dictating to women (or girls), even my own daughter, that their lives should be changed forever, future paths blocked, because of something that happened on a microscopic cellular level.

In many parts of the world, women still suffer institutionalized discrimination and indignities reminiscent of a thousand years ago, even unto the forced mutilation of their bodies.

But not here, not now.

Comments

I hate to trot out the old cliche -- but:

If men got pregnant, abortions would be safe and free.

(no offense meant to the male readers here)

After reading the article on Mother Jones, I came back here to post - and then I read all of your post, scharrison. I don't have much more to add to it, except to say that I, too, have been there, done that. And had it not been for a safe and legal abortion, when I needed it, my life would have been very different. I didn't make the decision lightly, and I still ponder it, even now, thirty years later.

I view attempts to restrict abortion as an attempt to gain control over women. It really ticks me off.

No offense taken, you're right

Regardless of how empathetic a male might be, he could never fully understand the physical impact of a pregnancy, much less the sheer magnitude of the loss of freedoms associated with becoming a mother.

Even good, caring fathers enjoy a hell of a lot more freedom to make choices in life as their female counterparts do. As for absentee dads, the difference in freedoms borders on the criminal.