There’s a lot going on in Congress. Immigration reform, hearings on sexual assault in the military, investigations of alleged IRS wrongdoings, etc. So what else should be added to the list? Oh, of course, BANNING ABORTIONS. Because nothing says Congress is at work than marking up a terrible bill that would hurt women and their families.
There’s a lot going on in Congress. Immigration reform, hearings on sexual assault in the military, investigations of alleged IRS wrongdoings, etc. So what else should be added to the list? Oh, of course, BANNING ABORTIONS. Because nothing says Congress is at work than marking up a terrible bill that would hurt women and their families.
It’s hard not to get upset while attending the House Judiciary Committee mark-up of a bill that would ban almost all abortions after twenty weeks. It’s just saddening to watch amendments that would marginally improve this otherwise-horrendous bill get voted down, one by one.
You see, the bill as it stands now, only has a very narrow exception that allows an abortion when necessary to save a woman “whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but not including psychological or emotional conditions.” What does this mean? It means that Rep. Trent Franks (who is pushing this bill) and his cosponsors don’t really think mental illness can be life threatening. That’s right, suicide – it’s all in your mind, just that pesky “emotional condition” that can end in death.
But let’s look beyond the one incredibly insensitive exception that actually made it into the bill. What about the Judiciary Committee’s rejection of amendments that would slightly make this bad bill better, like adding an exception for rape or incest survivors, or an exception that would adequately protect a woman’s life and health.
I guess if you’re of the mindset that “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”, then you probably don’t think there is even a need for an exception for survivors of sexual violence. Which could explain why Rep. Franks opposed the amendment. Although he later disputed in the hearing that he said as much, it seems that Rep. Franks thinks that rapes do not result in pregnancy very often. But all of this debate begs a much more important question – why are we even talking about “how many”? If even ONE pregnancy is a result of rape, then the bill should include an exception. But this is not how Rep. Franks and his colleagues saw it, and so the amendment was voted down.
So, Mr. Franks, what should we say to a woman when she can’t get an abortion after 20 weeks because, well, a politician who she had never met, who never knew her, had no idea about her circumstances, and in fact discounted the violence she experienced, thought it best for her to block her ability to get an abortion. What do we say to her?
What do we say to the women who would be affected by this ban? Do we tell them that some men in Washington said they knew better than the women themselves what is best for them?