Oh man, I just sent off my Wednesday column for RH Reality Check, and then I see that Jen at Feministing is mocking this new attempt from Mississippi to ban abortion:
A pregnant mother possesses certain inherent rights that are natural intrinsic rights which enjoy affirmative protection under the Constitution of the United States, and under the laws or Constitution of the State of Mississippi; that among these rights are the fundamental rights of the pregnant mother to her relationship with her child; her fundamental right to make decisions that insure the well-being of her child; and her interest in her own health and bodily integrity.
My column is about the maddening belief held by anti-choicers and made into law by Carhart v Gonzalez that women are fundamentally stupid and therefore have to be “protected” from abortion. This is further evidence of this. Reading this bill, you get the strong impression that anti-choicers sincerely believe this is how abortion happens: You’re walking down the street one day, minding your own business, happy to be pregnant (or whatever—it’s not like we question whether a car is happy to be driving, nor should we question if the wombs with no discernible wills of their own worth respecting are happy about doing their pregnancy duties), and suddenly a carful of feminists and abortionists kidnap you and force you, against your will (that you don’t really have), to have an abortion.
I swear, these people would frogmarch you into a mandatory insemination chamber and call it “freedom”. It’s so pleasant to consider how a bunch of creepy old Bible-thumping male legislators can’t look at a young woman like me without indulging in sentimental fantasies of mandatory procreation. The feeling is remarkably similar to the one you get when someone grabs his crotch at you in public. Real warm and fuzzy, like you’re truly cared about and respected as a human being. Look, they say I have rights!
The book I’m drawing on for my Wednesday column is called Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States, and I recommend it on 15 different levels. It’s an examination of how the frame of “choice” instead of “rights” fails to be comprehensive enough, because it relegates reproductive rights into the realm of consumer choices (and implies that only those who are legit consumers—i.e., not the poor—should have rights at all).
In it, she examines the double-bind of the pre-Roe era that allowed authorities to assume control of the babies born to white women. Basically, they needed to prove you were unfit to be a mother to take your baby away and give it to a “deserving” white couple suffering from infertility. So they proved you were too crazy to be a mother by pointing to the unwed pregnancy itself as evidence. The pregnancy became the evidence that a woman wasn’t fit to be a mother. Essentially, the choice to keep a baby born out of wedlock was defined out of existence.
You’re seeing the same logic going on with this bill and the whole movement to ban abortion to “protect” women. In order to be a legitimate choice-maker in our society, you have to be mature, of sound mind and body, and not coerced. But the choice to have an abortion itself is the definitive evidence that a woman fails on one and possibly all of those accounts. They’re trying to define out of existence the possibility of a freely chosen abortion.
That’s why Solinger argues that the “choice” frame needs to be abandoned strictly in favor of the “rights” frame. With choices, you often have to justify your right to make them, especially in a consumer culture where choice is so often a privilege of those who can afford it. If women had the inarguable right to an abortion, then it would be a lot harder to rein it in by determining who has “earned” it by being old enough, rich enough, married enough, whatever. Laying claim to rights is a powerful act, which is why the anti-choice movement is always trying to do it.
47 Responses to “We demand the right to government oppression!”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Well, fundie men need to be protected from homosexuality because, well, you know … they’ll all just rush out and do it if teh buttsex is freely available.
Why should women ever want to have kids if abortion is around? They need to be protected from abortion or they will never have children - just the men need to have an absence of gay or they will never want to have sex with women and make them mothers!
Oy. First the “shame the fatties” bill and now this. Not only are both maddeningly hateful, they’re both maddingly stupid as well. Explain to me how my right to bodily integrity speaks in FAVOR of a forced birth bill?
Well, it means your male owner has a right to fuck you without the fear that his female property will later be violated by the gyno tools. I think.
What is it with Mississippi? My parents live there, and I could swear I see their politics growing more reactionary by the day. Does the heat and humidity cause people’s brains to leak out of their ears, or what?
“I swear, these people would frogmarch you into a mandatory insemination chamber and call it “freedom”.”
Well, you have the freedom to produce new soldiers for The Fatherland, you have the freedom to obey your father, your brothers, your husband, and any other nearby male, the freedom to live a live free of contraception, and you have the freedom to complete all pregnancies, no matter how harmful they may be to you.
It’s like a wonderland of freedom!
“It’s so pleasant to consider how a bunch of creepy old Bible-thumping male legislators can’t look at a young woman like me without indulging in sentimental fantasies of mandatory procreation.”
Look,what do you want? The creepy old males are either going to look at young women, or they’re going to cruise airport restrooms…
“My column is about the maddening belief held by anti-choicers and made into law by Carhart v Gonzalez that women are fundamentally stupid and therefore have to be “protected” from abortion.”
I’m pretty sure that the law under review in Carhart was not meant to “protect the women” in the abortion procedure. The bill’s authors intended to protect a different party during the procedure.
***
This is just a guess, but I doubt the Mississippi law in question will pass. Or even come up for a vote. If a legislator wants to get past Roe, he or she had better be more savy by several factors.
Wrong, reactionary choad. Kennedy argued that this procedure needs to be banned in order to protect women from regret and horror, an opinion that assumes women are feeble compared to men. Because you haven’t learned to polish your hostility to women with condescending assumptions that we’re all about as bright as very stupid dogs doesn’t mean your misogynist cohorts haven’t improved their PR skills.
I used to be able to sit back and point out that most of the idiotic bills going to my state’s legislature were from the shoeless rednecks living north of I-10. Then John Read (one of the ‘tards behind our recent wackiness) decides to get stupid. I shouldn’t be surprised. The idiot used to be my pharmacist until he used information on a scrip I was getting filled to help an old crone settle a score with me. Shouldn’t be surprised at all.
Reactiony choad?
Here is the case. You either can’t (or won’t) read it. My money is on won’t.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
I’m pretty sure that the law under review in Carhart was not meant to “protect the women” in the abortion procedure. The bill’s authors intended to protect a different party during the procedure.
Absolutely! If by “protect” you mean mandate fetal dismemberment and ban intact delivery.
I used to be able to sit back and point out that most of the idiotic bills going to my state’s legislature were from the shoeless rednecks living north of I-10. Then John Read (one of the ‘tards behind our recent wackiness) decides to get stupid. I shouldn’t be surprised. The idiot used to be my pharmacist until he used information on a scrip I was getting filled to help an old crone settle a score with me. Shouldn’t be surprised at all.
I’ve read it. And not that you’ll respect the opinion of a woman smarter than you (which would be most, but that’s beside the point), here’s legal scholar Dahlia Lithwick’s take on it:
It’s worth noting that the main reason the anti-choice right pushed the “partial birth” abortion ban was because it was the easiest way to maximize their hatred of women under the lie of caring about “babies”. In other words, they banned a procedure that is done almost completely for the health and well-being of the mother, and isn’t a “choice” in any meaningful sense. It’s like banning heart surgery or knee surgery in women and only women because they don’t know that they need to suffer as penance for our sins, and they don’t get to have a choice about it. They didn’t go after women who are making choices that could be judged. This was unvarnished misogyny—attacking women in desperate medical circumstances who need often life-saving intervention. Because they can get pregnant, and for some reason, that level of control in the hands of the hated sex makes some men like seroj absolutely fucking crazy.
You link to an article about the case rather than citing from the case itself. This uses the same reasoning, I suppose, as why read novels when you can read the criticism.
Here’s an idea: read the case. You might be surprised what it actually says.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
Or, what the hell, here’s the Cliff’s Notes version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart
Jumped back over here to see if women are considered human yet. Guess not. And babies are product for production, market, and trade. Do they have any plans to tweak the design to government specifications? Well, there we have it.
rant ON
* The following characters are entirely fictional and any resemblance to presumed intelligent, sentient persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. Some of the characters may have certain traits and/or mannerisms that may seem to suggest actual presumed intelligent, sentient persons but we make no claim that these traits exist at all or in this combination in any actual presumed intelligent, sentient person, living or dead.
I guess the only question remaining for these “upstanding” Mississippi legislators* is if they have knowingly or inadvertently financed or otherwise enabled any prolife terrorists or prolife terrorist organizations since anti-terrorism laws have taken effect. If they have nothing to hide, then they certainly won’t mind if an open-ended investigation is begun to ensure their innocence.
Investigators should probably start with gathering e-mails and all on-line activity of suspect legislators, the results of which should be open to the public, unless said legislators are taken into custody by US agents and held for national security purposes in Syria or undisclosed locations in Cuba. All medical records and DNA samples should be turned over to the state in the interest of national security. They should probably be put on restricted flight status until the investigation is complete. For their own safety, of course, and for the Safety of The AMerican ™ Public (STAMP)**.
(*see disclaimer) Eric Rudolph-the-Red-Nosed-Mountain-Dwelling-Christian-Terrorist should probably be creatively interrogated in an effort to obtain names of his enablers and accomplices in his terrorist campaign against the STAMP**. Clearly, the names of these Mississippi legislators should be considered a necessary part of any such investigation in order to secure aforementioned STAMP**.
Further to this proposal, we should probably secure a court order to harvest the kidneys of these Mississippi legislators in the interest of the states duty to protect the right to life. I hear Mississippi has high diabetes rates. I’m sure there are good folks down there who will die without government intervention and it is our patriotic ™ duty to compel Mississippi legislators to realize their inherent desire and right to serve the public good and as an ongoing government program to ensure that STAMP* is secured.
Additional Disclaimer: Don’t blame me. This is the Republican fantasy land, and don’t they want us to see things their way?
**STAMP under the current administration excludes the parts of North America including but not limited to Canada, that country full of illegal immigrants, Latin America, and South America, New Orleans and the New Orleans diaspora from which garbage (nee US citizens) has been put out as defined by Libertarian Neil Boortz, homeless veterans who are nonexistent(c) as defined by Christian Conservative commentator, falafel king, and troop supporter ™ Bill O’Reilly; any female members of the US military or female contractors working on behalf of the US government in Iraq to secure the shock and awe of Iraqi oil; any US military personnel currently serving in Iraq who may be fired upon or sprayed with gas by Blackwater employees; atheists as defined by former President G.H.W. Bush; assaulted women in Stark County, Ohio; Britney Spears; and any other biological material (nee US citizen) that is void where prohibited, taxed or restricted by law.
rant OFF
If this posts multiple times I will implode.
Eric Rudolph is not a terrorist, but an anti-terrorist fighter. Those who have killed babykilling abortionists have done so to protect the innocent. People use force everyday to protect the innocent and no one has a problem with it, except when it comes to protecting unborn human beings, then they go ballistic. It’s very simple, the unborn deserve the same protection as the born. Born people are protected with force quite often. Force that you would be glad if it was to protect your children against a murderer. Force that you yourself might use to protect your own children from being murdered. The unborn deserve the same protection.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
Rev Spitz,
Thanks for the laugh.
Seroj, why don’t *you* read the decision starting at page 28 through page 35 or so?
You clearly have not done that, so your lecturing on primary source material is more than a little contrived. (No champ, Wikipedia doesn’t count)
Translation: Protecting women from their own fickle decisions is a legitimate concern of the state. And the best way to keep them “well informed” of medical procedures is somehow to ban those procedures outright.
That paragraph and the paragraphs that surround it are an indefensible clusterfuck of stupid, blabbering about the special bond between woman and child and how women who get abortions can suffer from low self-esteem. (Seriously) The opinion in parts (like the one quoted above) pretends that the legislation is merely informing people and creating a healthy dialog, when of course that has nothing to do with the legislation in question.
After spending literally pages arguing in favor of protecting women from their own decision-making the opinion further concludes that banning the procedure does not pose a health risk by appealing to “teach the controversy” arguments — even though lower courts found that the controversy was manufactured.
Amanda wrote:
That was certainly one of the reasons given to support the legislation. Unquestionably so. That section of the opinion takes up multiple pages. It’s spelled out in the opinion in certain terms: women don’t do a good job of being “well informed” on their own, the state has an obligation to keep them “well informed”, and the way to keep them “well informed” is to make decisions for them.
Dear Rev Spitz,
I’d rather hang out with the doctor who saved me from my wholly unwanted pregnancy than with he who would make me pray against my will any day. Those who screech about the damnation of others, and assume they have any greater insight into the afterlife than the rest of us due to aherence to an old book of fairy tales, are essentially terrorists themselves - trying to control people through intimidation and threats.
Cheerio.
RKMK
(”OOOoooh! My VERY OLD BOOK says THIS!”
“Oh, you mean that book that was written by men, whom by your own doctrine are eternally sinful and flawed? Doesn’t actually say anything about abortion in there anyway.”)
So, seroj is now the Robert Bork of Internet trolls?
What a fascinating world we live in…
“Rev Spitz” - parody of rightwing religious fundnuts?
Or a sadly delusional excuse-maker for authentic American domestic terrorism?…
Amanda,
Somebody has unleashed a whole load of crazy on your intertubes these past couple of days.
Who are these guys? What nut-job linked to you?
We had the same type of Women-are-too-stupid-to-understand write up in a pro-con abortion article at my Uni. The guy was basicly advocating for more “information” (sounded more like he wanted to open pregnancy crisis centres) for those considering abortion, as if they didn’t understand what they were going to do? I think the author was male too, and unfortunately in my books, that ultimately disqualifies you from judging women’s decisions, because when you get right down to it, you DONT understand. Same goes for politicians…Leave the choice there and let us make it, if you’re really worried about the unborn baby souls, then pray for them or something…
“SAY THIS PRAYER”
Fuck your god and your misogyny, rev.
A real live woman is infinitely more important.
Genesis 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Until man took a breath, he was not alive. Until that fetus is out of me and takes its first breath, it is not a separate human being.
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
So, if two men fight, and cause a pregnant woman to miscarry but cause no harm to the woman, all that happens is that he pays a monetary fine. No life for a life, no hand for a hand.
Exodus 21: 23-25 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
It’s only an eye for an eye if the WOMAN is harmed.
Margalis,
Well, at least you read the case.
Amanda’s point was that the take away (or holding) of Carhart v Gonzalez, or of the Partial Birth Abortion law iself, was to protect women from themselves.
Let’s be clear that this is false, and laughably so.
If Kennedy included some dicta that you cite on page 28 of a 70 page opinion, then so be it. However. If you wanted to use this dicta as substantive law in a law brief, if you wanted to use this as a holding in a law school outline, or if you wanted to assert this as the “meaning” of Carhart on a blog post, you’d still be wrong.
Amanda apparently gets her law via slate.com. So I do give you credit for actually reading the case. Beyond that you are arguing that a marginal paragraph is the heart of the opinion.
Quoting myself (sorry): “So, seroj is now the Robert Bork of Internet trolls?”
Actually, it’s looking like seroj has great legal mind much like Alberto Gonzales - the George Bush Jr. of Attorneys General.
Well, that is if you define “great” as meaning the closest he should get to the law is paying a traffic fine…
Good progressives know to beware the word “choice” in any kind of social or economic policy. It’s been particularly embraced by the neoliberal circuit - take for example, “housing choice” policies that purport to give poor folk a way out of their shitty neighborhoods but in truth displace them for affluent development priced at the middle- and upper-middle classes. Good to see the euphemism is being debunked here.
Seroj, finding and making law through cases requires paraphrase of the kind that Amanda and Lithwick did. Readers always have to put what the judge has written into other words: the take-away principle, the holding. Otherwise this case is only about people named Carhart and Gonzales.
What do *you* think Kennedy decided? Nothing about information, dialogue, or communication between provider and pregnant woman: we know that.
Seroj, read it. Yes, he finds abortion disgusting. But it’s crystal clear that he thinks that it needs to be banned in order to protect women from our own stupidity. But feel free to disbelieve that anti-choicers want to protect women. I actually agree with you that it’s a lie used to cover a desire to hurt women.
What nut-job linked to you?
Jill Stanek.
I’m still laughing that seroj had the decision quoted back to him and he’s still whining that it doesn’t say that. Bit of a tactical mistake linking the decision without reading it, wasn’t it, seroj?
“But it’s crystal clear that he thinks that it needs to be banned in order to protect women from our own stupidity.”
No. This is not the “reason” for his holding. You are wrong. And if you ever go to law school, then get an abortion case, then try to use this “reasoning” in your brief, then you will lose.
Clearly.
“Readers always have to put what the judge has written into other words: the take-away principle, the holding. Otherwise this case is only about people named Carhart and Gonzales.”
I agree absolutely. So do you think the holding of the case is that partial birth abortion is illegal to protect women from themselves? This is really what you got out of the case?
Seroj,
You are wrong. I went to law school. Kennedy considered whether: the ban placed an “undue burden” on the woman’s right to an abortion, it was vague, and, most importantly, whether the legislative purpose was legitimate. Kennedy initially frames that purpose as “preserving fetal life” but because the opinion specifically allows, as an earlier commenter pointed out, for fetal dismemberment, there is no preservation of life. Any arguments he makes in an effort to support that point are illusory. Any legal scholar with any amount of depth (or intellectual honesty) realizes that despite what Kennedy says he is doing, what he is in fact doing is allowing a ban to go forward for one type of procedure, while holding that the distinction between that and a procedure that is just as deadly to fetal life is kosher.
Most importantly, he interpreted the statute to only cover intact D&E! That was what the vagueness challenge was all about–since “partial-birth” abortion is not a medical term. So if YOU read the opinion, you will note the following: 1) he defines partial-birth abortion to include one, rather grisly procedure that is less dangerous to maternal life (very slightly) and significantly less dangerous to her uterus (which the opinion reflects, if you read it carefully), but excludes another, rather grisly procedure (the dismemberment described above AND IN THE OPINION) that ends fetal life just as effectively; 2) he asserts that the state has a legitimate purpose not only because of fetal life, but because of its interest in “medical ethics” and that respect for human life has to do with the bond between mother and child, and all the language mentioned above.
You don’t address the first part of the opinion (narrowing, so as to avoid the “void for vagueness/undue burden” problems), and with regard to the second part of the opinion, you dismiss the fact that Kennedy spills more ink talking about human dignity as shown by the bond between mother and child than he does about any other legislative objective. So clearly, when he looks for the legitimate purpose (which is necessary for protection of a fundamental right, since abortion is a fundamental right which gets strict scrutiny), he is talking about human dignity as shown by the bond between mother and child, and he is stating that partial birth abortions sever that bond in a way that would make the mother feel guilt.
If you don’t see that in the opinion, you are not sophisticated enough to parse it.
In short, what Amanda said. Kennedy is justifying this law based on women’s regrets. That is where the (necessary) legitimate state interest flows from, IN THE TEXT OF HIS OPINION. Everything else in the opinion either deals with different issues (vagueness or undue burden analysis) this is the part of the opinion that addresses whether the law passes strict scrutiny.
Do your homework before you start speaking from authority. Really.
Ismone
Sometimes people regret having children. Does that mean that we need to mandate tubal ligations and vasectomies all around to prevent the possibility that someone might complete a pregnancy and regret it? And adoption: almost every woman who gives a child up for adoption regrets it, at least to some extent for some time. Ban the practice right now!
Seroj is right because of the Law of the Penis, it appears. Evidence doesn’t seem to sway him. He’s not even aware of what his own movement is doing with this tactic.
I regret not earning a higher score on the LSAT.
Ergo, the LSAT should be banned to prevent test-takers from regretting their LSAT scores.
seroj, dude. Don’t you rememer IRAC?
Issue.
Rule.
Analysis.
Conclusion.
Rule + Conclusion = Holding.
Analysis = Rationale. = Reasons.
Amanda and the rest of us who criticize Carhart in the way Amanda is doing are criticizing Kennedy’s reasons for why the court held the way it did.
Among his reasons (hat tip Margalis): “”It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound . . .” Seriously, what part of that does not jibe with Amanda’s critique?
What nut-job linked to you?
Jill Stanek.
oh yeah, that.
“seroj, dude. Don’t you rememer IRAC?”
Totally, dude. It’s just that you got the “A” part wrong, though. It’s Application, not Analysis.
http://law.slu.edu/academic_support/irac.html
You still obviously haven’t read it. Notice how I am citing page numbers and passages, and you…aren’t. Curious. Why it’s almost as if you have no idea WTF you are talking about.
That “marginal paragraph” was several pages long and it was not dicta. Those paragraphs about the guilt women feel were used in this specific case to show that the state has a compelling interest to interfere and was directly relevant.
Fail.
Maybe I should just copy and paste Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion? Since clearly Seroj didn’t read that either.
I’m eagerly awaiting a response from him that is something more that “nuh-uh!” “No you’re wrong!” is not really a powerful legal argument.
I’m still hung up a little on that troll rev’s bit about whose rights need to be protected with force. He seems to be arguing, by implication, that vampires must be protected by the full power of the state unless we can prove that, despite being demonic entities, they have the mens rea to know that what they’re doing is morally wrong, and the specific intent to permanently injure or kill, rather than merely inconvenience their victims….
Dianne,
That was an awesome comment.
Ismone
seroj,
Depends on your school, dude. And, gee, in order to effectively apply the law to the facts, one must analyze. Hence “Analysis.”
And in any event, your answer neglects to address the substance of my comment - that the criticisms leveled at Carhart go to Kennedy’s reasoning.
—–
Didn’t Ginsberg read her dissent from the bench b/c she was so angry at Kennedy’s patronizing attitude in Carhart?
CORRECTION: “Depends on your school instructor, dude.”
See here for commentary surrounding this statement: “First, to give a summary of the IRAC format […]: it stands for Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.” (Bold emphasis added.)
Textbook synopses from Legalbooks.com break IRAC in the same manner, with A = Analysis.
I could continue, but I’m certain you get the point.
Further, my legal writing II prof taught ARAC: Assertion, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.
I’m reminded of an old saying: There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
And to quote Margalis yet again today: “Fail.”
Well, paul, vampires aside, Eric Rudolph bombed an Olympic park. What the hell the Olympics had to do with abortion resulted from the delusional and insane rantings of a prolife Christian terrorist. It is clear that the political agenda was to wage a campaign of terror. Ergo, the cipher troll Rev. was asserting prolife terrorist propaganda to honor its prolife terrorist hero, much as a follower of Osama bin Laden would do to excuse murdering our fellow citizens. The utltimate goal of terror is met, with the scale being the only clear difference.
He then invokes arcane religious incantations into his cipher so that those who are supportive yet prone to be shocked and repelled when confronted with the actions of prolife terrorists are then reassured that the mission is of godly origin, which then triggers chemical reactions in the brain that soothe their discomfort. This is religious prolife terrorism in all its naked simplicity. The purpose is clearly not to protect lives, but rather to wage a campaign of terror and appeal to those who are sufficiently soothed by religious incantations to overcome their revulsion to committing acts of terrorism.
I’m not an expert on terrorism, but that’s how I understand it. I’m not sure if Carnivore is still used and/or if it is being used to monitor internet exchanges such as this.
What teac said.
Seroj’s IRAC summary comes from the St. Louis University School of Law.
Where does SLU rank, anyway…fourth tier?
Oh wait…they couldn’t even get on the rankings.
Well, that’s what we called “detrimental reliance” in my Torts class. Caveat emptor, Seroj.
A pregnant mother possesses certain inherent rights that are natural intrinsic rights which enjoy affirmative protection under the Constitution of the United States, and under the laws or Constitution of the State of Mississippi; that among these rights are the fundamental rights of the pregnant mother to her relationship with her child; her fundamental right to make decisions that insure the well-being of her child; and her interest in her own health and bodily integrity.
If a fetus is a child under Mississippi law, abortion is already illegal. If abortion is legal, a fetus isn’t a child.
I’m all for pregant mother’s relationships with their children being preserved; her choice whether or not to have additional children by carrying a fetus to term or not is part of that.