A time of regret: the abortion ruling, the Virginia Tech shootings
By Mary Anna Towler on Apr. 24th, 2007
But the court's ruling is troubling not only because 
of future laws. It's troubling for what this law does. And for what it represents: another instance of decisions being based on religious belief rather than science.
It's especially chilling to see a group of male judges - not one of whom is a doctor - telling women and their doctors that they know more about the complications of pregnancy than the doctors do.
The federal Partial Birth Abortion Act permits the procedure to save a woman's life. But there is no exception to protect a woman's health. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, insisted that women have recourse. If a doctor believes the procedure is necessary to protect a woman's health, wrote Kennedy, the woman can go to court and challenge the law.
If? The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says the procedure is indeed sometimes necessary to protect women's health. In the case of certain complicated pregnancies past the first trimester, said an ACOG statement, the procedure is the safest way to end the pregnancy and protect the woman.
Pregnancy isn't always the blissful period we would like it to be. Things can go wrong, and often do, after the fertilization of a woman's egg. Miscarriages, for instance, are common, and most of them, says the website MedlinePlus, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the National Library of Medicine, occur because the developing baby has "deadly genetic problems."
"It is estimated that up to 50 percent of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant," says MedlinePlus. Often, that's nature reacting to a problem pregnancy.
Even after the pregnancy has continued to the point that women know they're pregnant, the miscarriage rate is 10 percent, says MedlinePlus, usually "between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy." The problem may be with the woman, or with the fetus.
Complications can develop later, as well. And sometimes, a pregnancy must be terminated.
No matter, said the court majority. Doctors' judgment should be subjugated to that of judges.
The ruling, said an ACOG statement, "in many ways isn't surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion."
Such is the country in which American women live now.
Speaking of culture... We won't get strong gun control while we suffer through the remainder of the Bush administration. And it's hard to imagine that even with a Democratic president, House, and Senate, we would get it.
But while we mourn the deaths of the students and faculty members at Virginia Tech, we should also mourn the failure of this country to adopt gun control laws that might prevent such a tragedy.
Among the bizarre reactions to the Virginia Tech shootings: the suggestion that we can prevent future killings by letting students and faculty members carry guns so they can protect themselves.
No law can guarantee protection from events like the horror at Virginia Tech. The gun lobby has hidden behind that excuse for far too long, though. No law against drunk driving can guarantee that people won't drink to excess, get behind the wheel, and kill people. But no rational person would suggest that drunk-driving laws infringe on our rights.
There is simply no excuse for the easy availability of guns in this country.
User Comments
Here is what others say about this article. City Newspaper isn't responsible for the content of comments.
Peter Kraft on April 30th, 2007
Stronger gun control laws will do absolutely nothing. Everyone seems to think they will, but this is backed up by what? What we need to do here, is step back and take a breath. Every time something like this happens, we react with emotion. That is to be expected, because we are only human. The more practical solution is to enforce our current gun laws. This is something we don't always do. How about stiffer sentencing for gun crimes, much like the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws?
Instead, everyone cries out that guns are evil, and they must be stopped. I have been carrying a gun with a valid permit for well over a decade. Never once have I had to use it, thank god. And I hope I never do. But I obey the laws and obligations that come with gun ownership. It is childish to believe that if you take mine away, the world will be a better place. If one student at V-Tech had been armed, it more than likely wouldn't have solved anything. But what if it had?
We all forget that Gun Laws and the people who fight for them, aren't really fighting about guns, they are fighting about rights. That is more important than anything. You don't get to infringe upon them when I have done noth