I’m probably not going to answer the question in the way you’re hoping, because I don’t know the answer specifically for what you asked. And though I’m not really sure what the actual legal status is at this point, what qualifies and what does not, and I get that what McCain was trying to say was that some go too far when they cite health issues as a reason not to vote for something like this. And I think that perhaps this is true…the tactic of keeping the door open works both ways.
But in my view, I don’t really think the charge that McCain tried to throw out there really applies to Obama. As I understand it, the Illinois bill was a redundant bill first off, which second of all if codified into law would have opened a legal door for a challenge to Roe v. Wade…when no rights were changed in any way, this was not a bill Obama could vote for. When the bill was modified to take that language out, as I understand it, there were NO protections for a woman’s health of any kind (including to save it), and to demonstrate that he was for what the bill was going to codify, but felt it needed some massaging, he voted present. That’s fair, that’s why the Illinois Legislature HAS a “present” option.
What I really think it boils down to is that the left and the right both agree that partial birth abortion is wrong. But whereas the left wants to make sure that any law that is put on the books does not force a person into a situation where the government decides their fate for them in the situation where it could have a serious detrimental outcome to the patient, in general they want to avoid codifying that. I’d say it’s very hard for people in Congress, not being by and large doctors, to anticipate every single circumstance which could come up where a fetus might need to be removed in a manner which might kill the fetus in order to prevent some grave consequence to the mother, whether that be death or some other fate which could seriously shorten the lifespan or be disasterous to the quality of life for the mother in the future. You can speculate all you want what that might be (total paralysis where the woman is also in constant searing pain might meet a person’s definition), but I think there’s a dificulty in trying to be too specific here.
That makes it a very hard issue to agree upon then, because it’s also very difficult to accept that one can not be specific enough. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t kind of thing…if the Democrats won’t list out every single possibility to be put into the bill, and earn the approval of the Republicans on every last “what if”, McCain and co can level the charge that “health of the mother could mean temporary discomfort”...which is really no different than trying to claim that we’re forcing the government to pay for gold-plated cadillac health care that covers cosmetic surgery…it’s an extreme worst case, slippery slope kind of argument that has very little real world practical application.
But if the left goes down that road, and something comes up that no one saw coming, how do you get around that? Well you can’t because it’s not in the bill. The challenge is to create some sort of umbrella that says “while using a common sense approach to what is reasonable” the mother and doctor should be able to figure out if there is something about this pregnancy which if allowed to go to term would be severely detrimental to the future well being of the mother. We could draw a line in the sand with death, but let’s face it there are some medical problems which to many would be a fate worse than death.
I guess I don’t think it’s something where if you put in place some exceptions for the health of the mother in the case where the doctor thinks continuation of the pregnancy is going to be extremely detrimenental to the mother’s future health, and the mother is willing to make this sacrifice based on her doctor’s medical advice, then again, it brings the whole question back into the realm of it being a moral issue, which is something the individual should decide, not the government. I don’t think that worrying that someone is going to decide after carrying a baby for 6 months that suddenly they’re going to decide “I don’t want stretch marks, take it out and kill it.”
So I guess to answer your question as best I can, I don’t think specifically it is codified in the law banning the practice, and I don’t think it should be, but my hope would be (and I’d find it hard to believe that this is not the case) that the law is worded in such a way that balances the needs of the mother and the needs of the unborn child wherein intervention is still at least possible in the case of serious unforeseen complications, whatever they may be if they rise to the level where if both the doctor and the mother are aware of the options and the consequences of action vs. inaction, the mother can be trusted to make the right choice. And if she gets it wrong, we can also only hope that for every person who gets it wrong, having these protections in place that allowed her to get it wrong also allowed several other women the ability to get it right, rather than to have the government make the wrong decisions for them. And again, it’s a moral issue ultimately…if there is indeed a God and you do something He would not agree with, then you will have to answer to Him eventually, regardless of what the laws of man say.
But I agree with Chris Matthews and countless other pundits. The way in which McCain dismissed this issue, though I understand the concerns he was mounting as I’ve explained, was EXTREMELY disrespectful. To seek to demean the idea of “women’s health issues” by putting finger air quotes around it is completley disrespectful and dishonorable, and he should be ashamed. If he were competent or compassionate in any way, he could have made his point without being overtly hostile and disrespectful to the issue, he could have done so without completly seeking to dismiss even the suggestion of the possibility that there could ever be any legitimacy for seeking these kinds of protections for a woman’s health. For that, I say you should be MIGHTILY offended, as I know most women I’ve spoken to were.