Could the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy be a new precedent in the American abortion dispute?

In the U.S., several states (Texas, Oklahoma) have tightened, restricted, or even prosecuted certain aspects of abortion in the past, against which the largest pro-abortion organization, Planned Parenthood, and Hillary Clinton herself have sharply emerged. Moreover, it has recently emerged that after decades, the U.S. Supreme Court, now considered a conservative majority, is once again dealing with the iconic and infamous Roe vs. Texas. Also with the Wade judgment, which was handed down in 1973 to fully liberalize abortion.

So far, Whoopi Goldberg, the star of the Nuns Show, has emerged most from hearing the news, who admitted to having an abortion on his own.

Protests to protect abortion have been held in major cities, starting in New York City, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles and Seattle.

But why is there such outrage in this matter? Let’s start with an organization called Planned Parenthood. It was founded by Margaret Higgins Sanger (1879–1966), a pioneer of the modern contraceptive movement and nominated for the Nobel Prize dozens of times. But it is no longer mentioned that he did not personally support abortion, but was criticized for his views as eugenics, especially for his initiatives for black communities (e.g., the Negro-project). As for the present, the institution founded by Sanger has nearly two and a half million clients a year, had more than 300,000 abortions in 2014, and had $ 1.3 billion in revenue, including 530 million in government grants. (Along with this government support, there are fierce debates among Republicans and Democrats in the legislature.)

Continue to the famous-infamous 1973 Roe vs. With the Wade case. While the defendant was the real name of the Dallas State Attorney (Texas), Henry Wade, the plaintiff, Jane Roe, was a pseudonym during the proceedings. We now know that the pro-abortion decision was based on falsified data and misleading the court. How did it start? In 1969, Norma McCorvey (1947–2017) became pregnant but did not want to keep her fetus because she was just unemployed and depressed. On the advice of his friends, he claimed in a pseudonym filed through his lawyers that he had been raped by black men and that the state of Texas did not allow abortion. McCorvey as “Jane Roe” was never personally heard, and the child was born and abandoned in the meantime. As another turning point in 2004, after converting as an evangelical Christian and repenting of his actions, McCorvey filed a formal proceeding in the Supreme Court, initiating a review but dismissing it without substantive investigation.

If Roe vs. We need to understand the Wade case, then we need to know another important name. She is none other than Bernard N. Nathanson (1926–2011), an American gynecologist who founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) pro-abortion lobby in 1969, which played a crucial role in Roe vs. Wade’s verdict in the abortion party’s decision, based on the medical opinions and statistics they provided. During the lawsuit, Nathanson provided key professional positions and falsified the number of people who died of illegal abortions. Moreover, there was no doubt about its credibility, as until the mid-1970s, Nathanson ran the largest abortion clinic in the United States and nearly 75,000 abortions were personally attributable to his name. The Hand of God – A Journey from Death to Life by The Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind in 1996 – The Journey from Death to Life admitting that he provided extremely highly false information about mothers who died of illegal abortions to influence the public and the Supreme Court.

Finally, it’s also worth noting that something happened after McCorvey’s re-admission in 2004: abortion in the U.S. was banned in 2007, or a specific form of it.

The US Supreme Court then ruled in a 5: 4 ratio that there was no longer a sufficient and well-founded argument to challenge the 2003 law on the basis of women’s right to self-determination – to put it simply, the fetus was not merely part of a woman’s body. Roe vs. Wade’s judgment, too. The essence of the method, which was prohibited by law, was that between 3 and 6 months of gestation, childbirth could be initiated for the purpose of abortion, with the birth of the fetal trunk and legs, and the entire body could be removed by pumping out the contents of the cranial cavity.

Abortion is currently a drastic medical intervention, in other words, surgery that kills the life of a non-human being. (However, it is not uncommon in the world today for animal welfare regulations to be stricter than sanctions for illegal abortions.)

Abortion is associated with the death of a child because there is simply no way at present that if the mother does not want to carry her fetus, she can continue her life “elsewhere”. At the same time, however, the technological revolution and scientific research and development can promise a new perspective in this area that can make the current legal problem practically workable. The most important element of the pro-abortion position is that the mother is unable to “get rid” of the fetus living and developing in her and Roe v. The Wade ruling also focused on the high number of illegal abortions, citing falsified data, which allegedly led to the deaths of many mothers at the time.

Recent U.S. health developments regarding premature babies suggest that humanity is now very close to making an artificial uterus, and that’s only a matter of years to come.

Recently, scientists at the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia, USA, have developed a “biobag” that kept a fetus of a 22-24-week-old fetus alive under artificial conditions and allowed it to be born healthy. This development is called ecogenesis because it means pregnancy outside a body. Of course, the new trend also has many unresolved and critical religious-ethical-moral aspects, but it also seems certain that if this technology en masse becomes available, we also have to reckon with dramatic consequences in all areas of life. The right to abortion in the future may be the right to have a fetus removed, rather than a “privatized” – and let’s put it this way: – decision over the life of a human being in a state governed by the rule of law.

This technological precedent, like the incubator that once banned and attacked to save premature babies, could change everything. This is why it is a very exciting question after this what kind of legal precedent the US Supreme Court will set in the future.

The author is a former UN human rights expert (2012-2020) and a Senior Fellow at the National Civil Service University.

Opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Index Editorial Board.

We love exciting, clever, argumentative writing. We look forward to hearing from you.

(Cover image: Allison Dinner / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / AFP)

Leave a Reply