A piece on RH Reality Check by Sofia Resnick highlights the latest legislative push by the anti-choice crowd, who appear to be commandeering techniques that were pioneered by the civil rights movement. That's some irony right there.
Under this latest push, anti-choice groups are pushing for new legislation to expand their civil options. Resnick explains:
This strategy is part of a larger trend of expanding the category of people who can interfere with a woman’s decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Another national anti-choice group, Americans United for Life, has also jumped aboard this strategy, offeringmodel legislation to help states pass laws allowing outside parties to sue abortion clinics for not enforcing abortion statutes. And some state legislatures, such as in Wisconsin, have already attempted to create legal standing for outside parties—such as a woman’s mother-in-law—to file a civil lawsuit against a provider.The entire strategy is terrifying, but did you catch the part that is the most frightening, in my humble opinion? Let me highlight it for you:
And some state legislatures, such as in Wisconsin, have already attempted to create legal standing for outside parties—such as a woman’s mother-in-law—to file a civil lawsuit against a provider.Say what? That has to be a misprint, right?
No, not at all. Burke Balch of the National Right to Life Committee expounds on it. Resnick quotes him:
“There are several advantages to civil remedies,” Balch said. “One is you can give standing—that is to say the ability to bring a case for an injunction to people who aren’t prosecutors—to private individuals. You can say, for example, if somebody is performing an abortion that violates the law in some particular perspective that the woman upon whom the abortion is performed or attempted, or certain relatives of that individual, can bring a case.”Someone please tell me that this is a plot from the rest of Mad Men Season 7, and not someone who legitimately believes that people should have the right to interfere in their family member's medical decisions--someone who thinks that there are times that override doctor-patient confidentiality? You can't?
Well then, bring me my smelling salts. I'm going to need them, dammit.
It's like we are on the verge of some freaky twilight zone where, next thing I know, I'm going to need my husband's signature any time I go to the gynecologist's office. Are there actually people that believe that is desirable?
Look, I know in many of these folks coming from a pro-life religious background, women are flawed, intellectually inferior, and capable of unimaginable deceit, but let's be real: That's not the world that we live in as secular citizens. That's not us, man. It's not us.
The world we live in accepts--AS IT SHOULD!--that I have the capacity, ability, and right to make my own medical decisions. And to continue a pregnancy or not to continue a pregnancy--that's a medical decision.
Because as we've talked about before, pregnancy is a medical condition.
Tell you what. Next time a gentleman would like to have a vasectomy, or a prostrate exam, let's make sure that we all scrutinize his health decisions with this same level of hostility, okay? Let's see how that flies.
On what legal basis does anyone BUT the patient have a right to sue a doctor? Even that, one could argue, is over-used, but it least it falls into an overarching realm of relatable concepts to me.
Don Drapers of the world, please, do me a favor: reel it back. My blood pressure thanks you, as does my husband, who couldn't handle raising all four kids by himself (or at the least, wouldn't want to).