Lee Salisbury at Dissident Voice comments on the 2004 story of Melissa Ann Rowland, the Utah mother who was charged with first-degree murder when she delayed a recommended early C-section and one of her twins was subsequently stillborn. Her doctor had warned her eleven days earlier that an emergency C-section was required to save the life of the twin. An autopsy later revealed that the fetus would have survived had she acted immediately. A tragic and sad situation, but is it murder? The President of NOW, Kim Gandy, argued that "Rowland's incarceration was inhumane treatment, our legal system recognizes every person's ?bodily integrity? and the right to make your own medical decisions." Bill O'Reilly, presenting the Pro-Life position as only he can, responded.

Ms. Gandy's argument claims every person has "bodily integrity."? OK, fine. So doesn't that description fit a viable baby in the womb? . . . Apparently not in Ms. Gandy's view.?It is beyond me how any human being can devalue life in this manner.

Salisbury's own response to O'Reilly is too harsh to be taken seriously. She claims that "Effectively, the pregnant woman is a human incubator and has no rights. The only rights are the rights of the innocent fetus who is presumed to be a baby." But surely the Pro-Life consensus position will not be that mothers have no rights and that only the fetus has rights. Rather, these are situations in which both mother and fetus can be said to have rights that have come into conflict. Pro-Life proponents, like O'Reilly, tend to ingore the nuanced challenges these conflicts present and assume that the fetus's rights always trump the mother's. That assumption is unwarranted.

I'm reminded of Judith Jarvis Thomson's "Unconscious Violinist" case, which she uses to justify abortion in some cases.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument [that a fetus' right to life always trumps the mother's right to decide what shall happen in and to her body].

There is much to say to Thomson's argument and about the conditions under which me might want to oblige a mother to have an emergency C-section or to carry out a pregnancy or to have something done in or to her body against her will. Are there any such conditions? What would they be? Salisbury's concern, however, is the impact the simple-minded Pro-Life assumption will have on public policy and the legal enviromnment we find ourselves in. She concludes with some important questions and observations.

The real conflict has become between the pregnant woman?s choice and the raw power of the state acting on Pro-Life inspired legislation to force a pregnant woman to go under the knife.?Indeed, Rowland didn't refuse a C-section; she delayed it. ?She had the C-section 11 days later in another hospital. One twin was born alive and one was stillborn.?Rowland may have made a bad decision.?But to the theologically driven Pro-Life legislation, a bad decision or accidental slip equals murder.

No court has ever ruled that one person can be forcibly operated on for the benefit of another. The law cannot demand that you give up your kidney or bone marrow or even blood to save another life.?Nor does it charge you with murder if you refuse.

Yet, only a pregnant woman loses the right to question doctor?s recommendation. Pro-Life legislation refuses the pregnant woman?s right to make medical decisions for herself and her fetus??Melissa Ann Rowland is no poster child for maternity.?But if she could be charged with murder, then every pregnant woman is put on notice that she will be watched, monitored, and doctored by the Pro-Life police state.?Who will decide if a miscarriage is natural or the fault of a negligent mother?

It turns our that Rowland had a history of mental illness. The murder charges were dropped and she was given 18 months probation on lesser charges. Truly a tragic situation. But what if she had not been mentally ill but had still resisted the emergency C-section for reasons of her own? Prof. Marguerite Driessen's comments, reported on the BBC, make the important point.

In January, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a foetus during an abortion.

The state law has been used to prosecute women who killed or harmed their unborn babies through their lifestyle, drinking or drugs.

But it has never been applied to prosecute a woman who failed to follow her doctor's advice, Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University said.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," Prof Driessen said.

(DV) Salisbury: In the Pro-Life Police State, Every Pregnant Woman is a Potential Criminal

See stories in the NY Times, MSNBC, and CBS News.

Cross-posted at EFRF.ORG

TrackBack