With every addition to a presidential race comes a replenishment of the abortion debate, and the addition of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to the GOP ticket is no exception. I would normally try to avoid bringing it up myself, but Ryan’s position on abortion is one that must be addressed, if only as a corrective for those who might aim to hold a meaningful White House position (yeah, I went there), or if he is genuinely worried about his standing with women. Because if he doesn’t rethink two of the bills he co-sponsored relating to abortion, it might not get much better.
The first bill would define human life as beginning at the moment of fertilization, rather than the moment of conception, which in my opinion is a shaky enough definition as it is. The second . . . well, I’ll just pull the quote for you:
Another would let hospitals decline to perform abortions, based on religious conviction, even if the life of the pregnant woman is at stake.
You know, because he’s pro-life and all.
In the long run, this probably won’t mean more than a few extra million in donations from the usual pro-life suspects. Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), who will have actual policy-making authority – unless the Senate is deadlocked 50-50, in which case Ryan, as president of the Senate, could cast a deciding vote – believes in exceptions not only for risks to the mother’s life, but in the cases of rape and incest. Their campaign spokespeople have been responding to attacks on his position by reminding voters how bad President Obama’s economic policies have been for women, which is a pretty good tactic. That’s how we can say “consistent” and “Romney” in the same sentence.
But you can bet Ryan isn’t the only office-holder who believes this stuff. A federal definition of human life, without any evident consultation with anyone who has ever studied medicine or biology, is as far from “limited government” as you can get. Those same people who have studied medicine will remind you that every doctor swears to do no harm; declining to perform an abortion that could save the mother’s life, however rare such an event is, is doing her harm. If you’re not willing to check your personal beliefs at the ER door, don’t be a doctor.
Nobody needs to paint Ryan’s positions as a war on women. They’re a war on the act of leaving medical decisions to the professionals – I don’t define people who refuse to perform medical procedures on religious or other non-medical grounds as “professionals” – and the patients. And they want this guy and people like him to reform Medicare? His approach doesn’t bode well for that end.
Unless such a law is actually passed, we really have no idea whatsoever about when or if or under what circumstances any hospital might actually make such a choice. What’s being implied here is that a hospital might insist that a pregnant mother choose to die in order to save the life of her pregnant child.
I don’t think I entirely agree with your idiosyncratic definition of “professional.” I don’t think professionalism necessarily requires one to set aside moral convictions. For example, suppose a pharmacist refuses to dispense plan B contraception. I think that’s his or her right, and isn’t unprofessional. However, I think that any pharmacy group should have the right to refuse to employ or supply such an individual.
Here’s the thing. In general, I think doctors, like everyone else, should be allowed moral convictions. Suppose someone went to a doctor and said “please transplant a third arm onto the middle of my back” Does the doctor have a right to say no? Of course he does, based on some amorphous moral conviction that it’s wrong. So it’s easy to see that a provider should get to keep his or her moral conviction. The real question is, what’s the principle that helps us to see when and why they might lose this privilege? You’ve got more ‘splainin’ to do.
Also, I am wondering, what is the difference that you see between conception and fertilization? Are you suggesting that a child is not conceived until, say, a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall? Common sense suggests to me that fertilization and conception are semantically identical in this case.Not every conception leads to an actual pregnancy. I understand why there’s a battle here, and why folks see it as important. It seems that the facts and common understanding of the matter are on Ryan’s side here. I’m pro-choice, BTW.
The principle that helps us to see when a doctor might lose moral privilege is medical value. If the woman in question will die or be permanently injured if she does not have an abortion, I believe it is incumbent upon the doctor to do whatever he or she can to save that woman. I would go easier on the pharmacist refusing to supply plan B, assuming he or she redirected the patient to a pharmacist who would.
This leads be to a somewhat unrelated point about sterilization. When I was serious about never having children (I have since done a complete 180), I read story after story about women and men who requested permanent sterilization, only to be refused on the ground that they might change their mind. This is certainly true in many cases, mine included. Nonetheless, I do not believe that anyone who knows that sterilization is an option would be so ignorant of the consequences that they need a doctor to talk them out of it. And for the record, when I was being lectured about this personally once, I asked if the doctors were afraid of ensuing lawsuits and the answer was no. My point is, patients of sound mind need to be met halfway if we’re talking about commonplace medical procedures that have long-term benefit, as sterilization would for someone who never wants children or doesn’t want to pass on a genetic defect, and not random, unnecessary transplants.
If fertilization does not automatically lead to pregnancy, then it doesn’t make much sense that a fertilized ovum equals a human life. Implantation is a reasonable enough starting point.