Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Legimate Rape: Something "Akin" to Rape?

I have friends that fall on every notch of the political scale. They range from tea party conservatives to occupy progressives.  With that in mind and as a preface, I want to discuss a heated political issue that should be non-partisan. I am afraid, however, that like with every public matter - it will turn into a dividing issue among friends and colleagues.

The 2012 election cycle is one of the most important in our lifetimes. There is a lot at stake in regards to what values and economic reforms we ultimately embrace. We have two distinct presidential candidates with clear differences in opinion about the economy. It will be a stark choice. However, many people are unaware that there are other important issues at stake.

Recently, a candidate for the senate in Missouri, Todd Akin, started a firestorm of controversy when he took up the issue of abortion. He was answering a question on why he vehemently opposes a rape exception to the anti-abortion law when he made the following statement:

"'From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,' 'If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

His statement is scientifically unsound. A woman's body cannot shut down ovulation of an egg merely because it was the product of rape. There is no legitimate rape. There is just rape.

I do not think this should be a dividing issue.

The comment, however, does put into perspective a Republican party position, which will cause debate. The Republican party wants to add a human life amendment which would ban abortion in all instances, even rape. The RNC will vote to add this position to its platform before the convention in Florida.

Furthermore, state legislatures, throughout the year, have attempted to pass "personhood" bills, which would legally make a fertilized egg a "person." The law's effect would make an abortion illegal in all circumstances.

It is not news that conservatives and Republicans are pro-life. It is newsworthy that elected officials are taking drastic measures to overturn forty years of precedent. Some of the candidates, like Akin, are explaining their position, albeit poorly.

Roe v. Wade, a 1973 decision, established abortion as a 14th Amendment liberty right. In Pennsylvania v. Casey, the court upheld that restrictions on previable abortions are unconstitutional when they cause an undue hardship to the woman. This has been the law for decades. The court in Casey even acknowledged that precedent should be followed to avoid further political polarization.

A pro-life individual has a right to oppose abortion. I understand the moral, ethical, and legal arguments against abortion. I emphasize with them. Everyone should do what they can  to help prevent abortions through education and counseling. Those tools needs to be utilized. That's where I draw the line.

Like my conservative friends, I think the government should stay out of our personal lives. Elected officials should not impose their religious beliefs via a constitutional amendment. Women should be able to make their own decisions.

No matter what I think, this election will have consequences. Even on non-economic issues, like abortion.

Ultimately, we can spend a lot of time trying to overturn a law or we can take steps to decrease the need for abortions. We can educate individuals about sex and its consequences. We should implement values in our schools that can help prevent unwanted pregnancies and strengthen the family.

I guess pushing for a radical change in the law regarding a woman's right to choose is also an option. That is why we have elections.





No comments:

Post a Comment