linnposts.com

I don’t know if facts and reason will make any difference in the debate over abortion, especially in this contentious election season, but our country cannot afford to give up on either one, thus, this second blog on the subject.

When asked about “late term” abortions in last week’s debate, Donald Trump couched his opposition to it by saying that babies are being “ripped” out of the womb even in the final week of pregnancy.

That statement is an example of the kind of incendiary rhetoric that makes discussions about a woman’s right to choose so difficult.

What Trump said was based on something that is not true and does not happen, underscoring the need for basic facts lest this subject be consumed by politically motivated remarks like his.

First of all, “late term abortion” is not a medical term, but one first used by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and picked up by all anti-choice groups.

Doctors use the term, “late term pregnancy,” by which they mean the time after a fetus has reached the point of being “viable” outside the mother’s womb. While that point is difficult to determine medically, the period beginning around 22 to 24 weeks has become the primary focus since in some rare instances a fetus of 24 weeks has survived.

There is limited involvement on this issue at the federal level. A 2003 federal law that was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007 bans what is called “partial birth” abortion. The term relates to the specific procedure called “intact dilation and evacuation.” At the time the law was passed approximately .02 percent of abortions were performed in this way. Today the procedure is virtually non-existent.

The best estimates are that only 1.3 percent of all abortions performed actually occur in late pregnancy, but reliable information about why women choose to have one is limited because of medical privacy issues. Certainly one reason is that it is not until 22-24 weeks that ultrasonography can provide real time images of fetal development that reveal any abnormalities.

Whether or not a woman who makes this choice can actually have one depends on where she lives. State laws vary dramatically. Eight states (ironically including West Virginia & Mississippi) and the District of Columbia, for example, have no restrictions. On the other end of the spectrum, forty-one (41) states have laws banning abortion after 22 to 24 weeks. Among those only a few allow an exception for the sake of the mother’s life.

The fact that different states have different laws, or none at all, is why there are efforts by social conservatives at the federal level to enact a uniform law regarding all late pregnancy abortions.

They have encountered stiff opposition for two primary reasons: (1) They want the ban to begin at the arbitrary point of 20 weeks of pregnancy instead of 22-24; and (2) they refuse to allow for any exceptions, including a threat to the mother’s life.

Their refusal to budge on these two points is why Hillary Clinton says she opposes their efforts, telling Bret Baier of Fox News who asked if she favored abortion rights with no exceptions:

“No, I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother. I object to the recent effort in Congress to pass a law saying after 20 weeks, you know, no such exceptions, because although these are rare, they sometimes arise in the most complex, difficult medical situation.”

She said essentially the same thing in the last presidential debate. She believes late pregnancy regulation is appropriate, but it should be based on medical facts as to fetus viability and should allow for the exception that protects the life and health of the mother.

Her position, which reflects the view of many other progressives, seem to me to offer a genuine possibility for finding common ground on this issue so long as social conservatives want to.

That remains an open question, however, that can be answered positively if they are willing to join progressives in making the following concessions:

First, the conflict surrounding abortion should be acknowledged by both sides as being waged by anti-choice and pro-choice advocates. No one is for abortion. The issue is about choice.

Second, anti-choice advocates need to stop demonizing Roe v. Wade. It was an honest effort to balance the rights of individual liberty with the compelling interest of states to protect the unborn. What is more, it was limited to the first trimester and, thus, gave states considerable latitude in what to do thereafter.

Third, respecting a woman’s ability to make moral decisions for herself is not only reasonable, it is morally right. To force women to carry a pregnancy to term, especially when it is the result of rape or incest, is disrespectful of both their intelligence and moral conscience.

Fourth, pro-choice advocates need to acknowledge that laws banning late pregnancy abortion can be legally justified on the basis of Roe v. Wade.

Fifth, pro-choice advocates need to also acknowledge that such laws can be medically justified because of modern medicine’s ability to determine fetal viability outside the womb after 22-24 weeks.

Sixth, all late pregnancy laws must allow for a genuine threat to the mother’s survival. The argument that fetal rights automatically override maternal rights is purely arbitrary and ideological.

It seems to me that these concessions provide a reasonable and fair basis for those on either side of this issue finding common ground, if they want to do so. But, of course, that is the question.

So the choice is up to us. We can continue this fight and divide ourselves over abortion, or we can make the necessary concessions to find common ground.

I believe the latter is the only way to acknowledge the fact that no one has a corner on truth or on moral principles.

It also makes it rather obvious that the matter of choice has to do with more than abortion itself. It goes to the heart of what kind of country we now are.

Are we a nation that finds common ground to solve difficult problems, or are we a nation that has become so divided that common ground is no longer possible?

Either way, it is a matter of choice which, as it turns out, is essentially the same choice we are facing in this election.