‘Right to Life’ can mean ‘Forced to Die’

Doctor’s Lawyer Defends Steps In Girl’s Cross State Abortion
AJ Mast - freelancer, FR123854 AP

FILE - Abortion-rights activist rally at the Indiana Statehouse following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on June 25, 2022 in Indianapolis. The lawyer for an Indiana doctor who has found herself at the center of a political firestorm after revealing the story of a 10-year-old girl who traveled from Ohio for an abortion says her client provided proper treatment.

Most of the people I know personally who oppose abortion are decent, loving human beings who have a sincere belief that ending a pregnancy is taking a human life.

No one I know personally who opposes abortion believes that a 10-year old rape victim should be forced to give birth or that a mother with an ectoptic pregnancy should be forced to die.

At least, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t believe that. I’ve never really debated the issue.

But, as it turns out, we do have a 10-year-old rape victim and she did have to leave Ohio to receive an abortion in Indiana and the response from the political right is telling.

The first response was to deny it ever happened. “Another Lie, Are You Surprised?” was Congressman Jim Jordan’s response.

Then, when a man was arrested for the rape and admitted guilt, the response changed quickly. Now, the argument reads, “Illegal Alien” rapes 10-year-old girl.

I don’t know if the rapist entered the country illegally. He has a Spanish name and, apparently, that’s enough for the politicians.

In the meantime, the general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee argues that the little girl should have been required to give birth and some Indiana authorities are investigating the physician who oversaw the abortion.

Is this honestly what the Supreme Court intended when it overruled the right to abortion?

Abortion defenders are outraged that President Biden hasn’t done “something.”

No one seems quite sure what the president is supposed to be doing, but the general consensus is that it isn’t enough.

But the Biden administration seems to be doing what, legally, it can to mitigate the impact of the court ruling.

The Department of Health and Social Services has mandated that health care institutions offer abortions to women whose pregnancies actually threaten their lives.

The Texas attorney general responded by filing a suit against the federal government. In Texas, apparently, the “right” to life applies only to the fetus, not the mother.

You know, one might have thought that after achieving everything it wanted from the Supreme Court – perhaps even more than it wanted – “pro-life” forces might have wanted actions to ameliorate the small but admitted danger to children and mothers implied in the decision.

Perhaps most do. I still can’t believe anyone I know wants a mother to die or a 10-year-old to give birth.

But the politicians who prey on their honest concerns to win power see no such limits.