The platform on abortion has no answer that will make everyone happy, but we do need to escape the constant political talking points of “they’re going to overturn Roe v. Wade” we hear (almost) every time a Justice is nominated or a Republican is on a ballot. No, that’s not going to happen – but the abortion conversation is getting more complicated. Consider that in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was adjudicated, medical technology was far different than today, almost half a century later. Let have the discussion:
Abortion has been a difficult and often polarizing topic in politics, religion and other social arenas for as long as the procedure has been available. We’ll proceed with a viewpoint that perhaps nobody, in fact, likes the idea of abortion, but many (possibly most) of us agree that the procedure does have a value in certain circumstances. This platform will examine several points to consider, and then take a position to move forward.
We must first discuss rights. While the woman most definitely has rights, we must also discuss when the actual developing fetus or baby, whichever is the preferred terminology, has rights. As agreed by most medical sources, at week 26, if born, the baby then has an 85% chance of survival. Those same sources agree that from week 24 onward to week 39-40 (full term), the fetus does have an increasing chance of survival outside the womb. This is where the Right to Life and the Abortion Rights groups have an uncomfortable intersection: With increasing advances in medical technology, at what point do rights for the unborn require equal consideration with that of the mother? Put more plainly, if a fetus at a certain point in the pregnancy can survive outside of the womb as a baby, what is the difference between the two (fetus and baby), except location? Then why does only the baby have rights if born prematurely?
The allocation of rights is complicated: When a pregnancy is delivered prematurely at, for instance, 30 weeks, and the baby survives with neonatal support until strong enough to continue without technology support, why then isn’t the electively aborted fetus at 30 weeks allowed access to that same technology to survive?
Other considerations need to also be weighed, including health and situational concerns. If the life of the mother is at risk (ectopic pregnancy, preeclampsia, etc.), that does warrant substantial concern and priority. If the life of the fetus is at risk (complications of developing twins, for instance), then those risks must also be examined and prioritized. Situationally, the cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest must also be taken into consideration.
To arrive at a moderate path forward, the platform position we are putting forward (prior to input and debate) will proceed with the following: Taking into consideration the rights of the mother, abortion prior to week 22 of pregnancy will not be opposed by this group. This allows time for decisions based on health, rape, incest, and other factors including additional screenings (e.g., amniocentesis). From week 22 onward, the fetus assumes rights as well, and abortion is no longer supported unless imminent threats to the health of the mother is at risk, or that of the fetus. In those cases where termination of the pregnancy is medically necessary, then a medically induced live birth should be used in place of a late term abortion, whenever possible. Further, care for a baby born prematurely can be financially unrealistic for the mother, and therefore any costs for neonatal care including life-supporting technologies and treatments will be covered by either the mother’s existing medical insurance, and/or a supplemental Medicare-sponsored component that requires no pre-authorization. The mother should incur no out-of-pocket expense. This care coverage will continue for the baby even if adoption is selected by the mother.