 |
| Abby Hafer |
Anti-abortion advocates, sensing their weak position, will often say that exceptions to anti-abortion laws should be made in the case of rape or incest. Incest is often a consequence of rape in any case.
The issue of abortion is hot in the United States right now and getting hotter by the moment. Since Canadian conservatives have a peculiar way of importing ideas from our southern neighbour, it is well worth Canadians’ while to follow the politics of abortion in the United States.
To recap the basics: in 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the long-standing national right to an abortion, in the case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This ruling gave individual U.S. states the power to regulate abortion as they saw fit.
This has resulted in a frenzy of political activity. Abortion has become a major issue in the presidential election as could be seen in the Sept. 10 debate between Vice-President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. It has also reaffirmed what opinion polls have shown for decades, which is that a majority of U.S. citizens actually favour the right to an abortion. Thus far, abortion questions have appeared on state ballots as referenda in seven states, and in every case, the voters have favoured abortion rights. Another six states will have abortion questions on the ballot in the upcoming election and, in addition, New York State will even have a question about discrimination against those who have had abortions.
But how does rape fit into all this? Since rape is a cruel act, and forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy caused by rape continues this cruelty, conservative legislators and opinion-makers often try to soften their stance — and its clear indication of cruelty — in the case of rape. They say that exceptions to anti-abortion laws might be made in the case of rape.
This may seem like giving at least a small amount of mercy to traumatized women.
However, it puts a rather needle-sharp point on the idea that according to conservatives, women should not engage in sex voluntarily. In fact, it appears that according to this line of thinking, women should be punished for having sex if they do so for enjoyment alone.
Seen in this light, rape exemptions make a disturbing sort of sense. The rape-exemption thinking appears to be that if a woman voluntarily engaged in sexual activity, then she must be required to bear any burden from the sexual act, even unto the point of nine months’ incapacity due to pregnancy, and much potential harm to her health both during and after the pregnancy, along with the possibility of actual death, even though this is unnecessary and could be alleviated with an abortion.
But a woman who did not volunteer for sex may be released from this burden, even if the resulting embryos are in every way identical. For a line of argument that continuously harps on the trope that “life begins at conception,” this is an inconsistent stance to take.
Further, the U.S. Republican Party has made it clear in other ways that it is opposed to women having sex because they enjoy it. For example, last June, Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would have guaranteed access to contraception throughout the United States. This has nothing at all to do with when life begins or saving what some call unborn children. It is simply a clear expression of the Republican goal to punish women for having sex because they enjoy it.
Seen in this light, exemptions to bans on abortion in the case of rape do not look like kindness or mercy. They look very simply like an overt punishment to any woman who has sex for pleasure. The thought is chilling.
This is the first part of a series.
Dr. Abby Hafer is a biologist, educator and writer with a doctorate in zoology from Oxford University. She teaches human anatomy and physiology at Curry College. She is the co-author of Bill H.471, a bill in the Massachusetts legislature that requires that all science taught in public schools be based on peer-reviewed science. Learn more at professionaldebunker.com and reach her at ahafer@curry.edu.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, LexisNexis Canada, Law360 Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at Peter.Carter@LexisNexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.