After the fall of Roe, problem miscarriages will inevitably carry an increasing risk of impairment and sterilization. Proof that the antiabortionists are unconcerned about this danger that women will increasingly face is that Republicans have gotten rid of the health exception in abortion bans in most of the states they control.
The public is acutely aware of the importance of this exception but somehow has not noticed its widespread disappearance.
Considering specific circumstances, substantial majorities say abortion should be legal when the woman's physical health is endangered (82%), when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest (79%) and when there's evidence of serious birth defects (67%). (link)
A recent WSJ poll is, at best, misleading; at worst, willfully deceitful.
In the poll, 48 percent said they strongly or somewhat favored a 15-week abortion ban that included the exception of protecting the health of the mother, while 43 percent were opposed to such a ban. (link)
The poll question should have been “Do you favor a 15 week without an exception for the health of the woman”, which reflects what is actually proposed or happening across the country.
But the health of the mother is not longer important to Republican state legislatures. Nor to Senate Republicans.
Despite the vast majority of Senate Republicans opposing abortion rights, they are not embracing a total abortion ban — leaving open the chance that several would support exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother. (link)
As long as the embryo or fetus is alive, is the loss of a kidney or uterus fine as long as the woman is not at the brink of death? Even the threat of paralysis would not deter those obsessed with embryo or fetus. A case in Peru illustrates this total lack of concern for the well-being of a pregnant female.
Starting at the age of 13, L.C. was repeatedly raped by a 34-year-old man who lived in her impoverished neighborhood near Lima, Peru. In 2007, when she learned she was pregnant, she attempted suicide and sustained a severe spinal injury. Doctors concluded that her spine needed to be realigned immediately, but refused to operate because she was pregnant—despite the fact that abortion is legal in Peru when the mother’s health and life are at risk.
After eventually suffering a miscarriage because of the severity of her injuries, L.C. underwent the spinal procedure four months after the doctors had determined that it was needed. But she was told that the surgery would have little to no effect and she would remain paralyzed. (link)
So what would happen to someone in the same situation as L.C. in an antiabortion state in the U.S. after Roe falls. You might think the rape exception would have helped her. Not so. The current rape exceptions are limited to people who have reported the rape to the police. Nor would an exception for the life of the mother save her from unnecessary permanent impairment because her life was never in jeopardy.
What will happen to pregnant women who wind up in emergency rooms after an automobile accident? In a sane world, the medical staff first tries to protect her life and health first and considers the life of the fetus when it does not conflict with the health of the mother. In Red states after Roe, that will no longer be a given.
In the future, all Republicans should be asked why they have abandoned the health exception in their abortion bans.