www.mozilla.com Weather Central
Voices
Headlines

Roberts not the answer -10/30/2014, 10:25 AM

See the signs -10/30/2014, 10:23 AM

Incumbents always win -10/30/2014, 10:23 AM

Convention center -10/30/2014, 10:23 AM

Schodorf for SOS -10/30/2014, 10:14 AM

Supermarket shenanigans -10/29/2014, 10:19 AM

Americans can fix the Senate -10/29/2014, 10:19 AM

A plea to city commissioners -10/28/2014, 8:58 AM

Having no price tag -10/28/2014, 8:58 AM

Leiker understands -10/28/2014, 8:58 AM

Justice doing his job -10/28/2014, 8:58 AM

Kansas and Greg Orman -10/28/2014, 8:58 AM

'Surplus' KDOT money needed in western KS -10/28/2014, 8:58 AM

Ready for a budget spin -10/28/2014, 8:58 AM

Dishonest mailing -10/28/2014, 8:58 AM

Changing Republicans -10/27/2014, 10:02 AM

Follow the votes -10/27/2014, 10:02 AM

Shameful attempts -10/27/2014, 10:02 AM

Slanderous ads repulsive -10/27/2014, 10:02 AM

Medicare experiment -10/27/2014, 10:02 AM

Profile, or die -10/27/2014, 10:02 AM

Important issues -10/27/2014, 10:01 AM

Politics at their finest -10/27/2014, 10:01 AM

Most important election -10/26/2014, 4:02 PM

Enough is enough -10/26/2014, 4:02 PM

Is Roberts on final lap? -10/26/2014, 4:02 PM

Democrat turned Brownback supporter -10/26/2014, 4:02 PM

Editor Bradlee; For it All, 'Thank You' -10/26/2014, 4:02 PM

Davis for governor -10/26/2014, 4:02 PM

Roberts a changed man -10/26/2014, 4:02 PM

Time to stay the course -10/26/2014, 4:02 PM

Embarrassing economists -10/24/2014, 9:13 AM

Sherow for House -10/24/2014, 5:07 PM

It can't get crazier (wanna bet?) -10/24/2014, 9:04 AM

Digital distractions -10/23/2014, 10:01 AM

Orman for Senate -10/23/2014, 10:01 AM

Federal persecutors -10/23/2014, 10:00 AM

More ed cuts coming -10/22/2014, 5:38 PM

Leiker is the answer -10/22/2014, 5:38 PM

Sun shining on schools? -10/22/2014, 5:38 PM

Airline a great addition -10/22/2014, 5:38 PM

Huelksamp: ideologue extraordinaire -10/22/2014, 5:38 PM

Kids do count -10/22/2014, 10:31 AM

Needing the past in the future? -10/22/2014, 10:31 AM

In praise of hunting -10/22/2014, 10:30 AM

What is a CID? Will it work for mall? -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Judging importance on the ballot -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Kansas Speaks -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Paying for schools -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Joining forces for Orman -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Research before voting -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Davis is moderate? -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

The most important election in your lifetime -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Huelskamp stands out -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Kansas farm interests -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Keeping unfounded reports from 'going viral' -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

The age of cynicism -10/18/2014, 9:02 AM

Preventable diseases -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Second term needed -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Kansans deserve better -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Officially killing Americans -10/17/2014, 10:27 AM

New era at FHSU -10/16/2014, 10:01 AM

Roberts is right choice -10/16/2014, 10:01 AM

Crumbling Constitution -10/16/2014, 9:52 AM

Redbelly's future -10/16/2014, 9:52 AM

Kansas deserves better -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

Remember to vote on Nov. 4 -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

You almost feel sorry for Sean Groubert -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

Register to vote -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

Living on that 70 percent -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

New bullying problem for schools: parents -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

Cheerios, marriage equality, the Supreme Court -10/13/2014, 9:49 AM

Wedded bliss -10/12/2014, 5:54 PM

Who is the real fraud? -10/12/2014, 5:08 PM

Teenagers 'make some noise' -10/12/2014, 5:08 PM

Not so private property -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Federal funding -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Teacher indoctrination -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Vote Republican -10/9/2014, 9:49 AM

Non-partisan politics -10/9/2014, 9:49 AM

Teen driver safety week Oct. 19 to 25 -10/9/2014, 9:04 AM

FHSU party -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Poverty in America -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Let the women serve -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Time for new direction -10/8/2014, 9:49 AM

Improving Kansas economically -10/8/2014, 9:35 AM

Water abusers -10/8/2014, 9:35 AM

Play safe on the farm -10/8/2014, 9:34 AM

Where the money comes from -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

The president's security -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

Marriage equality -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

The sins of the father are visited -10/6/2014, 9:02 AM

Cannabis in America: The bottom line -10/6/2014, 9:20 AM

A reason to celebrate -10/6/2014, 9:20 AM

Gov. shields wealthy from paying for schools -10/5/2014, 2:07 PM

Passionate protest in defense of civil disorder -10/5/2014, 2:07 PM

October is time for baseball and, of course, film premieres -10/4/2014, 2:16 PM

Alley cleanup -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

Will the West defend itself? -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

Find another school -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

myTown Calendar

SPOTLIGHT
[var top_story_head]

Ugly underbelly of abortion debate

Published on -10/31/2013, 2:17 PM

Printer-friendly version
E-Mail This Story

In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Roe v. Wade holding that a woman has a constitutional right, grounded in the right to privacy, to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That right, of course, is not -- and never has been -- absolute or unlimited. States may restrict that right (often in the name of protecting the woman's health) as long as the regulation does not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's choice. Past a certain point in pregnancy, abortion is prohibited unless necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother.

In the past 20 years, the "fight" mostly has revolved around two areas: the legal limits that may be imposed and the practical limits, meaning the lack of access. For all of the high-minded rhetoric, it is a very cruel debate because it takes place on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable women in our society.

Restrictive abortion laws -- and the Texas law held unconstitutional this month is example A of this -- do not restrict the rights of middle-class women in big cities. The way the "undue burden" standard has played out, those who oppose abortion pass laws that put obstacles in the path of women who are the most vulnerable. Thus, the Texas law, for example, would have barred doctors from performing abortions unless they have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic.

Why?

As the judge found, there is no medical reason that the doctor performing an abortion must have admitting rights within 30 miles. Put aside the fact that abortions performed prior to 20 weeks (which is the limit imposed by law) rarely result in emergency room visits. Even if they did, there is absolutely no evidence that the doctor must have admitting privileges in order for the woman to be treated in an emergency room. Women who go to emergency rooms are treated by emergency room doctors, without regard to where the clinic doctor has privileges.

No, the reason for the limit had nothing to do with protecting women's health and everything to do with making it more difficult and more expensive for poor and rural women to exercise their constitutional rights.

In much of this country, outside of the big cities, it is nearly impossible to find doctors who will perform abortions. You shouldn't have to be a hero to be a gynecologist -- and certainly not a local hero -- but that is how it works. In some areas, doctors come in once or twice a week (sometimes from a distant city or even from out of state) to volunteer at a local clinic. If they can't do that, then women can't get abortions.

So, too, for the law's limits on administering the medicine that induces abortion.

When the medical protocols were first established, women were required to come to the clinic to receive two doses of the medicine. Later, many doctors found that a single visit was all that was medically necessary.

Understand, every time a woman must go to a clinic, she must find a way to get there, find someone to care for her children, lose a day of work. It's no problem if you are a wealthy urban woman. It's a potentially insurmountable obstacle if you aren't.

So what did Texas do? They passed a law that would require a woman to personally come to the clinic not once, not twice, but three times.

Why?

Because it would reduce the number of abortions by making them more difficult and more expensive. The judge upheld these restrictions, finding that they are a burden but not unconstitutional, although he went on to say that an individual doctor should be allowed to use his or her judgment as to what is medically appropriate, a result that left many concerned that doctors still could face discipline if they practice medicine the same way doctors do in states where the governor is not determined to block access to abortion.

What would happen if middle-class women in Dallas and Houston and Austin were suddenly denied access to abortions? What would happen if young women on college campuses in Texas could no longer get safe abortions? Texas Gov. Rick Perry would have a revolution on his hands.

The reason he doesn't is because it is the poor and the vulnerable who are the pawns in this fight. And that is so wrong.

Susan Estrich is a columnist, commentator and law and political science professor at USC.

digg delicious facebook stumbleupon google Newsvine
More News and Photos

Associated Press Videos