www.mozilla.com Weather Central
Voices
Headlines

He is risen -4/20/2014, 2:20 PM

Anti-Semitism alive, dangerous in America -4/20/2014, 2:19 PM

Abolition of teacher tenure out of place -4/20/2014, 2:19 PM

Library award-winning -4/20/2014, 2:19 PM

Equality in discipline -4/18/2014, 7:57 AM

Earth daze -4/18/2014, 7:57 AM

Equal pay -4/18/2014, 7:57 AM

Receiving great care -4/17/2014, 4:09 PM

Unequal pay among genders -4/17/2014, 10:25 AM

Fighting for Kansas veterans -4/17/2014, 10:25 AM

School reductions -4/17/2014, 10:25 AM

Dress for safety -4/16/2014, 10:09 AM

Does losing due process create inadequacies? -4/16/2014, 10:09 AM

Hate crimes -4/16/2014, 10:09 AM

On with the prom -4/15/2014, 8:57 AM

Newman proud to be in western Kansas -4/14/2014, 8:57 AM

Waiting on revenue estimates -4/13/2014, 8:57 AM

Wake up, people, and see the danger we’re in -4/13/2014, 12:03 PM

Patronizing paychecks -4/13/2014, 12:03 PM

Stripping of teachers’ due process worrisome -4/13/2014, 6:11 AM

The Kansas Ministry of Truth -4/13/2014, 6:14 AM

Letterman, Hillary and Jeb: 21st Century symbols -4/13/2014, 6:10 AM

Expensive school bill -4/13/2014, 6:12 AM

How to assist evil -4/11/2014, 9:15 AM

Taxing life away -4/11/2014, 9:12 AM

Lying about Obamacare -4/11/2014, 9:17 AM

The talk radio party? -4/10/2014, 11:04 AM

Term limits -4/10/2014, 11:06 AM

Let's do what we do best -4/10/2014, 11:05 AM

Satisfying the court -4/9/2014, 10:45 AM

Late-night funding fight -4/9/2014, 10:44 AM

‘Farmland’ — art is life on screen -4/9/2014, 10:45 AM

Tradition not changing -4/8/2014, 12:02 PM

Flat as a pancake -4/8/2014, 11:22 AM

Willing to take a bet -4/8/2014, 11:24 AM

Exposure to violence threatens children’s future -4/8/2014, 11:23 AM

Battling MS -4/7/2014, 8:58 AM

Why Renewable Fuel Standard matters -4/7/2014, 9:23 AM

Rites and wrongs of spring -4/7/2014, 9:23 AM

Coming to terms with Brownback -4/6/2014, 2:11 PM

Are 'religious viewpoint' laws needed in schools? -4/6/2014, 2:11 PM

School non-funding -4/6/2014, 2:11 PM

Sex and race equality -4/4/2014, 8:08 AM

Rest of the story -4/4/2014, 8:08 AM

Bank on USPS to save 'bank deserts' -4/4/2014, 8:08 AM

Gambling and government -4/3/2014, 9:51 AM

Not merely water under the bridge -4/3/2014, 9:51 AM

Federal fine -4/3/2014, 9:51 AM

Twister time is here again -4/2/2014, 9:59 AM

School funding battle continues -4/2/2014, 9:59 AM

Watching for the flip-floppers -4/1/2014, 10:09 AM

Will Hays enter the 21st century? -4/1/2014, 10:09 AM

Tax breaks -4/1/2014, 10:09 AM

Hobby Lobby case a slippery slope -3/31/2014, 9:16 AM

Happy birthday, Gloria -3/31/2014, 9:16 AM

Unequal voting -3/30/2014, 11:37 AM

Protecting the pollinators -3/30/2014, 11:37 AM

Parties, politicians and seeking an advantage -3/30/2014, 11:37 AM

Healthy aging -3/30/2014, 11:37 AM

Threatened chicken -3/30/2014, 11:37 AM

As temperatures rise, pay attention to stored grain -3/30/2014, 3:49 PM

Bizarre arguments and behavior -3/28/2014, 10:06 AM

In your dreams -3/28/2014, 10:06 AM

Against the wind -3/28/2014, 10:05 AM

Discovering the salt of the earth -3/28/2014, 10:05 AM

Entrepreneurship key to economic growth -3/27/2014, 8:36 AM

Kansas goes Kremlin with arrests, secrecy -3/27/2014, 8:36 AM

Get ready for Arbor Day -3/26/2014, 2:03 PM

Reading between the lines -3/26/2014, 2:02 PM

Switching parties -3/26/2014, 1:53 PM

Putting a price tag on damages -3/25/2014, 10:13 AM

Privately piercing, serious sacrifice -3/25/2014, 10:13 AM

Autism bill passes House -3/25/2014, 10:13 AM

United stance -3/25/2014, 10:13 AM

Legislative session getting down to the end -3/25/2014, 10:12 AM

Taxation bill involving livestock successful -3/25/2014, 10:12 AM

STARBASE Day hits Topeka -3/24/2014, 10:13 AM

Judging based on accomplishments -3/24/2014, 10:14 AM

Who speaks for the voiceless? -3/24/2014, 10:14 AM

Fly Hays -3/23/2014, 1:12 PM

Learning from the candidates -3/23/2014, 1:12 PM

hedy -3/21/2014, 1:12 PM

-3/20/2014, 9:59 AM

Fred Phelps -3/20/2014, 9:59 AM

Is There Wage Stagnation? -3/20/2014, 9:58 AM

Cost of living, wages don't add up -3/20/2014, 4:01 PM

Legislative proposal raises questions -3/20/2014, 4:01 PM

No vote on war -3/19/2014, 3:32 PM

Wonder of St. Fidelis -3/19/2014, 4:01 PM

Protein for breakfast -3/19/2014, 2:58 PM

A pointed comment on guns -3/19/2014, 8:57 AM

Campaign madness -3/19/2014, 2:58 PM

Counting the cost of Kansas' Medicaid expansion -3/18/2014, 9:26 AM

Tax-relief spells a sure vote -3/18/2014, 9:26 AM

Tourney madness -3/18/2014, 9:25 AM

St. Patrick's Day -- The value of Irish humor -3/16/2014, 5:44 PM

Not all things are bad -3/16/2014, 5:44 PM

Supreme Court takes Legislature to school -3/16/2014, 5:43 PM

Parochial education -3/16/2014, 5:43 PM

Governed by rules, not men -3/14/2014, 10:00 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