Skip to main content

Abortion Questions

I have come to accept that there are many thoughtful, intelligent people who firmly believe — as I do not — that abortion is murder. I further accept that there is no moral or philosophical argument I can offer that will convince them otherwise.

I would, however, like to offer some practical arguments, which I have not yet seen thought through, or even brought up. If we end up, as we might, in a situation where Roe v. Wade is overturned, what would an actual ban on abortion look like? What would be the challenges to implementing such a ban? How does one go about making government responsible for policing women’s bodies?

Because if Roe is overturned, what we certainly will not see is an overarching federal ban — no foreseeable Congress would even consider it. So it will fall to each state to create its own abortion laws. Inevitably, some states will ban abortion altogether.

But a ban at the state level will most likely require an expansion of state government to accommodate what will surely be a dramatic increase in criminal activity. These states will need more police, more courts, and more prisons. Strapped state budgets will need to adjust.

Because laws do not stop abortions. They reduce access. They encourage dangerous workarounds. They turn ordinary citizens into criminals. But even in countries like Honduras — where any abortion, for any reason, is an aggressively-enforced crime — an estimated 80,000 women per year still manage to end unwanted pregnancies. Despite hair-raising risks.

So regardless of how strict the enforcement, let’s stipulate that the demand for abortion will continue to be brisk, even as the supply becomes illegal.

This is a movie we’ve seen many times. Just as in Prohibition, just as in the “War on Drugs,” the supply of an illicit product will always rise to meet the demand. This creates new kinds of criminals at every point in the supply chain, and society will need to decide how much enforcement it wants. But you can’t have an effective ban without bringing criminals to justice. What’s a crime without punishment?

So with all this in mind, here are some serious questions for those who would ban abortion outright:

Do you believe abortion is first-degree murder? Since premeditation is a given, should a conviction carry the same punishment as other first-degree murders, i.e. life imprisonment or the death penalty? If it’s not first-degree murder, then what is it? Will murder of the unborn carry more or less punishment than murder of the born?

Do you support taxpayer dollars allocated to the enforcement of abortion laws? If your state needs to raise income or sales taxes to pay for it, would you support that? Would you divert money from other areas of state government? Would you move resources from, say, the state’s Covid response to pursue abortion suspects?

Would you earmark state funding for policing and prosecution? Will police be trained in forensic gynecology? Will interrogation rooms be retrofitted with gynecological equipment? Will a uterus be considered a crime scene? Will an officer need a warrant to inspect such a crime scene?

Would you expand the judicial system to accommodate large numbers of new cases? Would you hire more judges and support staff? Would you put more public defenders on the payroll? Would you build more courtrooms?

What evidentiary standards would you establish? Can a suspect be held in custody because her uterus holds evidence of a crime? Would a judge — or a prosecutor — be able to order surgery to find evidence of a suspected abortion?

Would you expand the prison system to take on expected offenders? As convicted murderers, would they join the general prison population with other murderers? Or would they be a separate class of prisoner?

If a single mother is convicted and imprisoned, will the state take responsibility for her other children? Should the state commit to maintaining those children for the duration of her sentence? If not, how do you propose to take care of them?

As abortion pills become increasingly available and legal worldwide, how would you restrict access? Since most pills will be ordered online — mostly from states where it’s legal — how will you cut off that supply?

Would simple possession of abortion pills be a crime, or would they need to be ingested first? Will the seller of the pill be as liable as the buyer? Which is the greater crime — selling the pills or using them?

How would you handle the influx of unwanted babies who will surely be given up for adoption? Will they become wards of the state? Will adoption services be ramped up to accommodate them? Will orphanages make a comeback? Is the state, or any other entity, prepared to provide long-term care for a significant number of parentless children?

I understand that I am applying rational standards to an emotional issue. But in this case, the emotional issue has huge practical consequences. Because if you truly believe in the criminalization of abortion as a societal imperative, then you must be prepared to administer its enforcement.

But the long, sordid history of black markets would argue against the success of imposing another layer of government control over personal behavior.

So especially for those who purport to want less government in people’s lives, is a ban on abortion really worth it?

Comments

  1. If you believe fetal life is a "human life" with tremendous value, and you are also rational, you probably would support either criminal / civil penalties that could be enforced, probably short of imprisonment of medical personnel or the woman carrying an unwanted fetus. Perhaps suspending or pulling medical licenses and other monetary fines.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Making Sense — Or Not — of an Electoral Smackdown

I waited all night for bad news. I was Charlie Brown, certain that Lucy would yank the football away at the last second. Last Tuesday is still too big to grasp at this time, so I’m going to string together a few random thoughts, none of which would add up to a full essay. I’ll try to focus on things I’m not seeing much of in the media. The pundits are arguing about whether this epic smackdown was about the Iran war, which it was. Or about gas prices, which it also was. Or about tariffs, healthcare, inflation, ICE, or massive corruption. And yes, the list is long. But they’re all looking at the trees. The forest was Donald Trump. Or should I say the forest fire? He was the only thing on the ballot, a monster loose upon the land. Tuesday was a primal scream, ten years in the making, a scream rising from the monster’s victims, which all of us are. Tuesday was pure rage at the gall of this deranged narcissist for taking a flawed but functional country and deliberately wrecking it...

Abdul El-Sayed Plays MAGA Bingo with Mike Rogers

   If it had been a prize fight, they’d have stopped it in the early rounds. The final Michigan Senate debate between Abdul El-Sayed and Mike Rogers was hardly the mano-a-mano blood sport the press would have you believe, but plenty of mud — or a mud-like substance — was slung, all from one side of the aisle. It’s well  worth watching . Rogers tried mightily to get people with weak minds to see El-Sayed as a terrorist monster bent on jihad from the Senate floor. Which, sad to say, is a lie that lands easily in certain Michigan circles. There are still, for instance, a shocking number of misguided Jews who insist on feeling threatened by him, and for no rational reason. Let’s now stipulate that the Muslim Brotherhood is not exactly top-of-mind for most Michiganders, but it’s all Rogers had to work with. His was not an easy hand to play, especially with the Trump stink wafting off him, but he played it badly nonetheless. He was flustered, ill-informed, ...

MTG and the Rebranding of the GOP

   This piece is from November of last year, when the House “discharge petition” was gathering steam, ultimately forcing Trump's DOJ to release the Epstein files. This was a big deal at the time, though we’re still not much closer to the whole Epstein story. But that’s not why I’m re-running this. Rather, it’s to show that, even then, Republicans were starting to bail on Trump. Marjorie Taylor Greene is, of course, back in the news, still throwing kerosene on the dumpster fire currently consuming the GOP. In other words, her rebrand, which she started last year, has moved into a higher gear.   Last week began with Trump giving up on the Epstein files — yup, we heard about that on Monday. It ended Friday with Marjorie Taylor Greene announcing her resignation from Congress. Between those two bookends we got a blizzard of WTF moments, mostly centered around the snowballing Epstein scandal. What we seem to be witnessing, in real time, is the disintegratio...