Over the last month, America has been witnessing one of the biggest abortion battles in the country since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Today, Bari shares her thoughts on the case of Kate Cox. She explains why it’s an appalling example of the cruelty of near-total abortion bans, and a tragic rebuttal to the pro-life claim that exceptions to these bans allow for a doctor and patient to make decisions in the woman’s best medical interest. And, Bari explains why she still grapples with the other side of the abortion debate—and why we all need to.
For more Honestly on abortion, please listen to:
Caitlin Flanagan on Why You’re Wrong—and Right—About Abortion
Akhil Reed Amar on The Yale Law Professor Who Is Anti-Roe, But Pro-Choice
Bethany Mandel, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Jeffrey Rosen on America After Roe: A Roundtable
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I believe that there is a lot of money being raised to fan the flames around the abortion issue. The only ones to benefit are the fund-raisers and politicians. Politicizing this issue isn't helping anyone.
We need leaders who, as you say respect both sides, because they are both right. I think Nikki Haley spoke to this in the first debate very well.
I would vote for anyone who says they personally don't have the answer on policies and believes we need a coalition of relevant voices to help form policy. There are many questions to answer to prevent unintended consequences. For example:
1) We need to consider the precedence set by limiting a doctor's choices. For example, if it is okay for laws to limit the use of abortion as a procedure, doesn't it then become okay for laws to limit other procedures. There are other procedures which involve the decision of risking one individual's quality of life (or worse) for another, e.g., donating stem cells, bone marrow, or organs?
2) How about considering that a doctor pledges an oath to do no harm. Maybe policy should respect that a professionally trained doctor and supervisors are more prepared to make decisions on a case by case basis than a bunch of politicians on a broad basis.
3) How about considering that a policy that everyone agrees to (e.g., XX weeks) should apply to the use of tax dollars for abortion but not to private funds or donations.
4) How about a law that requires diverting all the money raised, to make abortion political, to research alternatives to abortion for unwanted pregnancy, e.g., preventing pregnancy through education, mental health care, etc.
And there are many more good questions to explore once we embrace that both sides of this issue have a point.
Right on