|
Home » News » Archives » On the 32nd Anniversary of Roe, ACLU of Illinois Challenges Assualt on Reproductive Rights
On the 32nd Anniversary of Roe, ACLU of Illinois Challenges Assualt on Reproductive Rights On the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: A Question of Moral Values By Lorie Chaiten* Following one of the closest and most contentious elections in American history, pundits across the country identified "moral values" as the social fault line dividing "Red" and "Blue" America. Eleven weeks later, as President Bush begins his second term and the U.S. celebrates the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade - the landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing abortion as largely a private matter - it is an opportune moment to consider the question of abortion and, more broadly, women's reproductive health care. In this discussion, we should ask, "Whose moral values�" are served in the continuing assaults on reproductive rights. What is moral, for example, about spending millions of taxpayer dollars on programs that deny sexually active teens the information they need to protect them from pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection? Since 1997, Congress has allocated well over half a billion dollars for sex education programs that exclusively focus on abstinence, censoring information that can help young people make responsible and healthy decisions. These programs do not work. To the contrary, there is evidence that programs of this type cause harm by deterring sexually active teens from using appropriate protection. How is it moral to deny teens information that can help prevent pregnancy and save lives? What is moral about denying a rape victim assistance to prevent a pregnancy resulting from an assault? A recent study published by the American Civil Liberties Union shows that in 8 out of 11 states, less than 40 percent of emergency-care facilities regularly provide emergency contraception (EC) on-site to rape survivors. EC is the form of birth control which when taken within days of unprotected intercourse reduces the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent. If emergency facilities offered EC, as many as 22,000 pregnancies each year that result from rape could be prevented. Yet, in releasing the first-ever national protocol for treating sexual assault victims, the Bush Justice Department excluded any mention of EC. Whose moral values are served by denying rape victims the option of preventing pregnancy? What is moral about hospitals and health care workers being allowed to place their values above the health care needs of their patients and deny necessary reproductive health care to pregnant women? Is it moral to permit a health care facility to turn away a 17-week pregnant woman with an infected uterus rather than terminate the pregnancy in order to fight the infection and protect the woman's life and future reproductive viability? How is it moral to place "institutional values" above the life, health and future reproductive well-being of a woman with a serious medical condition? Indeed, what is moral about forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy when she is unable to care for a child? When she doesn't feel ready to become a parent? When she wants to finish high school? The underlying question in all of the above scenarios is: What is moral about the government interfering in one of the most private decisions a person can make - whether or not to have children? Most Americans believe that abortion should remain legal. Almost all of us can identify circumstances in which we believe abortion is a moral choice, and other circumstances in which it is not. When is abortion moral for you? That is the private question. The public question is: Who will draw the line? * Lorie Chaiten, a lawyer, is Director of the Reproductive Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois |
|
