For about a week and a half now my friends and I have been lamenting our unfortunate ties to the State of North Dakota. We're not entirely sure what they're thinking, but my current guess is that they want the next Pope to be from their state.
Recently, the North Dakota legislature decided it was time to show just how extremely conservative they can be. Their primary target: abortion. (I guess watching Minnesotans stand up for gay marriage this past November made them pick a "less controversial" topic?)
Here's the gist of what has been proposed:
No abortion based on genetic defects,
No abortion based on gender selection,
No abortion if conceived during rape- even if it's the product of incest,
No abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected (that's approximately 6 weeks into pregnancy)
And, the two most disturbing outcomes:
Defining life as beginning at conception,
Shutting down the Red River Women's Clinic due to restrictions placed on who may perform abortions.
Now, having been raised Catholic, I get it- I've heard all the anti-abortion propaganda you can imagine. I can understand why life beginning at conception is such an appealing notion, and why I should be so morally opposed to the idea of ending a life.
But let's be serious here- I don't want any of this crap legalized. Well, that's a lie; in the interest of being totally honest if the gender selection one went through I wouldn't be upset and I'm not going to try to justify that. Everything else, though, I wish I had numbers on hand because I don't want to sound like I'm making things up.
Banning an abortion a woman decided on due to the detection of genetic defects is imposing a ridiculous expectation on that person. Normal children are costly, time-consuming, and require a level of maturity for a parent to raise them. A child with special needs requires more from each of those categories. If that person is not capable of being the type of parent or providing the care that child would need, the state better plan to take up those responsibilities itself. Some people are not up to the task, and will not be able to "rise to the occasion," and to require them to do so can destroy the rest of their life.
I don't mean to sound like children with genetic defects ruin lives- everyone I know raising a child affected in some way wouldn't have it any other way. But they do require more work, more money, and more time- and many people cannot provide those things.
Of course they had to touch on rape a little bit in this. Because they must be of the mindset that "women are asking for it" and that our bodies can "shut everything down" during a "legitimate rape." I just...I can't believe the amount of stupid that exists in government. Biology is biology is biology. They have as much chance of conceiving during rape that they do during consensual sex. Because it's still sex. Did they miss that day in health class? Did they miss the part where an estimated half of rapes don't get reported because these women feel ashamed- and any byproduct of that could intensify that shame?
I admit- I'm a bit surprised that last one includes incest...why is this super conservative state defending incest, of all things?
Then we have this- banning any abortions once a heartbeat can be detected. Now, I have never been pregnant, but my understanding is that it is very easy for a woman to not know she's pregnant for a few months. Not everyone tracks their period as closely as they should (myself included), not everyone get morning sickness, cravings are circumstantial, and weight gain isn't terribly drastic for some, and definitely not in the first trimester. Fact is- six weeks is an absurd cut off.
This particular ban also has a physically invasive aspect- a transvaginal ultrasound. So, not only are they forced to deal with the reality of having a child they didn't plan, and possibly don't want, they have to be physically uncomfortable to have that verdict reached.
Now, if abortion is to continue existing, of course I want it to be as safe as possible. I'm okay with wanting licensed physicians to perform what can be a dangerous procedure. However, to have the stipulation be that they have admitting rights to a hospital within 30 miles of the facility? North Dakota's one abortion clinic is in a city where one of the hospitals is affiliated with Christianity...how is that going to work? Obvious North Dakota is obvious.
As stated, I was raised a Catholic. I do believe children are a gift, and that we should do everything we can to keep them around, alive and healthy. But why is the state protecting nonviable clusters of cells over the rights of adults? I guess they still get some props for keeping the mother's life in mind (but only if that life is in jeopardy by physical definition).
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm not overly disturbed by the idea of having the cutoff mark be at viability. If the fetus can survive outside of the mother, I don't see why that shouldn't be done. But to require a woman to live with a parasite she either doesn't want, can't sustain, or doesn't want to watch suffer is downright foolish.
