President
Barack Obama has never been silent regarding his views on abortion. In an
article on Life News entitled “Obama Threatens to Veto Bill Banning Abortions
After 20 Weeks”, the president and the White House issued a policy declaring
its opposition to a bill that would prohibit abortion beyond 20 weeks in
pregnancy. The policy states as follows: The
Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1797, which would unacceptably restrict
women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to
choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and
their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best
made between a woman and her doctor. Forty years ago, the Supreme Court
affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to
choose. This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for
women’s health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients’ health care
decisions, and the Constitution. The Administration is continuing its efforts
to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support
maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. At the same
time, the Administration is committed to the protection of women’s health and
reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they
make. If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto this bill. (Para. 3)
The
White House administrative policy was reacting towards a bill that sought to
base its merits on the fact that there is scientific evidence for fetal pain
during the 20th week of pregnancy. If the fetus is capable of
experiencing pain during this time, it would seem that becomes a morally
relevant factor as to whether abortion is ethical or not. As a side note, I
hold to the view that abortion is unethical throughout all points of pregnancy
except perhaps in cases where the mother’s life is in jeopardy.
There
are a few observations regarding this policy to take note of. First, it seems
as though the administration cares little about the personhood question of the
unborn or thinks it is irrelevant. After all, the administration would surely
have had access to some of the academic findings concerning fetal development
that these Congressmen had been using as a basis for their proposed bill. But
the fact this policy seems to make no mention or reference to these
considerations regarding fetal pain makes one wonder whether the President and
his staff even care whether the unborn is a person. Second, the policy oddly
enough gives the impression that women’s ‘health’ and reproductive rights are
absolute rights that must never be tinkered with during the time of pregnancy.
The policy claims that this bill would ‘unacceptably restrict women’s health
and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose’. Note
that the policy did not say this would count as a heavy restriction but
merely that any kind of restriction – which this bill certainly amounts
to – is unacceptable. One has to wonder whether the Administration is committed
to the view that women’s bodily rights know of no exceptions and always
supersede any other supposed rights it’s willing to grant to the fetus.
So
overall it seems to me that the Presidential Administration seems to be
indifferent to the question of fetal personhood based on how it characterized
whose rights are relevant and at stake during the course of pregnancy. And
lastly, one could almost accuse the White House administration of not letting
scientific data – which in this case clearly has some support for the claim
that late term abortion is immoral – play any significant role in shaping
public policy but resorting to ambiguous and colored concepts (such as women’s
health) that have not been well defined or defended.
