The only response to abortion that matters is one based on The Constitution

The only response to abortion that matters is one based on The Constitution.

My position on the abortion issue is complicated and seemingly paradoxical. It is informed by my status as a preacher's grandkid and ordained minister as well as two decades of work as a sex educator. I can argue the morality and immorality of both sides of this issue -- and I have. In the end I concluded that the conflict between a woman's right to self-determination and fetal right to life is one that is so fraught with emotions and so clouded with religious and moral passions that any decision I arrived at that was not soundly based upon the law of the land (ie The Constitution) was both relative and subjective and could only be reasonably applied to myself. In sum, I've come to realize that our individual convictions don't matter -- the only response to abortion that really matters to us as a society is one based on The Constitution.

So, I re-read The Constitution. For the nth time. But this time, I re-read it through the twin lenses of women's reproductive rights and fetal rights to life.

Surprisingly, I couldn't find anything in the Constitution that specifically guarantees the right to life. It does state that the government cannot deprive someone of life without due process of law, but does that mean that the government guarantees a fetus the right to life? It's a big stretch. The Declaration of Independence indicates that born people are endowed by their Creator with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but of the those three, only liberty is enumerated as a right in the Constitution. However, if we assume the right to life is under the mantle of the 9th Amendment, then we'd have to also acknowledge that it covers the right to self-determination, which is so fundamental a right that it is the guiding principle of our entire political system: the people are sovereign -- their rights to self-governance and self-determination are inviolate.

Of all the parts of the Constitution, 14th Amendment seems to be most definitive on the question of abortion rights:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and no government, Federal or State, can deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Since a fetus is not yet born, it is not a citizen, naturalized or otherwise. Until a fetus is actually, rather than potentially, a member of society, it does not have constitutional rights. It doesn't have standing under the Constitution -- It isn't a person yet. Fetuses aren't individual entities that can be called persons until they are born--until they survive childbirth and exist separately from their mothers. However,  in a softening of that position, The Supreme Court decided in 1973 that the unborn fetus does have constitutional rights around the third trimester (24-28 weeks), as it is capable of functioning independently from the mother at that time.

This creation of rights for the fetus in the Third Trimester is problematic, because it conflicts with women's Constitutionally enumerated rights to liberty and equal protection. This is why challenges to Roe v. Wade are going to come before the Supreme Court again. The creation of rights for fetuses, particularly in State legislatures, potentially creates severe limitations of the rights of all women of childbearing age. Many women do not know they are pregnant until the second trimester when they begin to "show", and what a woman does or does not eat or drink during pregnancy can profoundly affect a fetus. In guaranteeing the fetus a right to live and thus forcing a woman to carry it to term, does the government also have the ability to force all women of childbearing age to change their behaviors so as not to endanger a possible fetus? Does a fetus have a right not to be born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Spina Bifida, one caused by alcohol consumption and the other by insufficient folic acid in the mother's diet? And if the government does hold women legally responsible for what negatively impacts a fetus during pregnancy, what position shall the government take on spontaneous abortions, which are estimated to happen to 35-40% of all pregnancies, 20% of which are unknown to the pregnant woman at the time of miscarriage, and many of which could be prevented by nutritional and behavioral changes? What legal and policing apparatus will the government put into place in order to guarantee that fetal rights are being upheld, and just how invasive will they be with regards to abridging women's Constitutional rights?

Speaking of The Constitution, the 14th Amendment, like the 4th Amendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated) would appear to guarantee a person's right to choose what to do with his or her body unfettered by interference from any government, Federal or State: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..." The body is the property of the sovereign individual, and viewed through the lens of a woman's ability to choose what she (and the government) does with her body, The Constitution appears to uphold and secure bodily choices as an unalienable right. Additionally, forced medical procedures of any kind (unless they're in the interest of the public health, like immunizations or quarantines) are also unConstitutional (read requiring ultrasounds prior to abortions) under the 4th Amendment.

It is also obvious that compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy is also a violation of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. "The Thirteenth Amendment’s purpose is to end the specific institution of antebellum slavery. A ban on abortion would do to women what slavery did to the women who were enslaved: compel them to bear children against their will. (A Koppelman, Originalism, Abortion, and the Thirteenth Amendment)

The Fifth Amendment states that "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." If the rights of the fetus are given priority over the rights of the mother and a woman is compelled by her government to carry a child to term, the issue of just compensation arises. Her most private property, her body, has been expropriated by the government in a perverse form of eminent domain, and the Fifth Amendment guarantees just compensation.

But how do you calculate just compensation for compelling a woman to bear a child against her will? Pregnancy is physically and financially demanding on a woman. Health complications often arise which cause a great deal of physical suffering, mental anguish, and medical care. Eventually, mobility, emotional stability, and clarity of thought are impacted by pregnancy, and with them, the ability to work enough hours to earn a living, to pay rent and buy food, and cover medical expenses. Childbirth is widely acknowledged to be one of the most painful experiences a human being can go through. Forcing someone to endure childbirth could be considered torture and thus unConstitutional, but even without that consideration, juries have been known to award millions of dollars to people for pain and suffering on a similar scale, particularly when it has been determined to be intentionally inflicted. And the suffering doesn't end with the birth of the baby. The healing process takes a minimum of six weeks, and that's just the superficial stuff. It takes months and sometimes years to recover from bearing a child. How can someone be justly compensated for being forced to endure that, even if does save a life? In life or death situations some people make choices to save another's life at the risk of their own and others do not. They choose themselves, they chose to act in their own self-interest, and we don't penalize them for it. We don't force anyone to make a choice between their own lives and someone else's -- except in the case of a pregnant woman and her unborn child.

In conclusion, when it comes to reproduction, the governments, Federal and State, have no legal foundation by which they can force a woman to continue a pregnancy any more than it can force a woman to begin or end a pregnancy -- and we're fools if we decide to give any form of government that authority. We really don't want the government involved in issues of reproductive choice because once we open that door again there is so much potential for abuse. To illustrate, I'll remind you of the eugenics programs in the US and Europe in the mid-20th century, the involuntary sterilizations of mental health patients and criminals here in the US, the forced relocations of Native American children into residential schools that were demoralizing and abusive, and the restrictions some countries place on the number of children people can have. From there it isn't that far a stretch to predict a time when our government restricts who can reproduce, forces people to give up genetic material so the government can design it's future citizens, and takes children away from their parents to indoctrinate them according to government wishes.

I recognize that God gave man and woman the ability to choose for themselves how they lived their lives, even knowing that some would choose to sin. The Constitution also secures this ability as an inalienable right for born individuals, and while some governments may recognize that the unborn have rights, ultimately fetal rights cannot be given primacy over the rights of the mother upon whom their very existence depends, because women are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the 14th Amendment. Interpreting The Constitution in any other way re-opens the door for government interference in matters of reproductive choice. We've fought all the way to the Supreme Court in several cases to void State laws abridging rights in this area, and I'm fairly convinced that, should the Supreme Court hear another abortion-related case, the justices will come to the same conclusions, reluctantly or not.


[Note that this essay is a work in progress and may be edited over time.]

It is possible that the right to self-defense as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment may apply here, as well. Certainly the unborn child cannot (except in the case of endangering her health) be considered the equivalent of a dangerous aggressor, however, a woman's body does house the fetus, the body is hers, not the child's, and if she deeply, passionately does not want that fetus occupying her body against her will, it could be argued that an abortion is an act of self-defense in that case, and legal under the 2nd Amendment. I haven't thought this all the way through, though, so I'm not including it in the body of the essay.

Back home, no baby -- yet

I had no idea that labor induction could fail, until it happened to me.

I went in on the evening of May 25th and they started me on Oral Cytotec to try to soften up my cervix and start contractions. Well, contractions started, but over the course of 36 hours there was no change in my cervix.  I was given the option of going home and seeing if nature would take it's course over the next few days (and coming back on the 31st if not) or changing up to Pitocin and using a balloon to widen the cervix.

At first I was leaning toward more intervention. I was already there at the hospital and I was tired of being pregnant. I'd also overheard three other women give birth in the room next door, and wanted to move on with labor so I wouldn't have more time to dwell on what it sounded like they were going through. But after talking with the mid-wife, nurse, and OB-on-duty, I chose to go home. I Do Not Want A C-Section, and putting me on Pitocin when I'm not even 2cm dilated means hours and hours of the baby's head slamming against my cervix until it dilates and we 1) have a vaginal birth, 2) have a baby in distress and they to do a C-section, or 3) wear me out and I need to do a C-Section. After thinking about it, the battering ram approach just didn't sound like a good way to start the labor and delivery process -- so I'm back home as of yesterday noon.

Today there is a little discomfort -- a big improvement over yesterday, as I was very sore in my lower abdominal area from all the induced contractions. I continued to have some contractions throughout the day and hoped they would continue into today, but I haven't noticed any, which is a big bummer. It looks like our hopes that the Cytotec would jump-start the laboring process even once the drug left my system isn't panning out. Ah well.

In the meantime, I'm being as active as I can. I may even get out there and do some gardening. The nurse midwife said to go home and have sex, and try some nipple stimulation. I've been having very painful nipple vasospasms lately so the thought of stimulation makes me cringe, and I'm tender enough in my nether parts after the contractions that the thought of sex also makes me cringe. We'll see what the next few days bring.

Naturally, I'm feeling disappointed, but I'm also pleased with my decision to go home and not force the labor. The OB on duty told me he thought it was the right decision. I don't want to increase the risk of a long, hard labor that ends in a C-section -- it's not the best thing for me or the baby. He'll be here soon enough. We just need to balance the benefits of letting him choose his time against the risks of placental and amniotic deterioration that are more common in women my age.

In the meantime, my step-mom will be around until the birth, and I'll get some more just-us snuggle time with M. Not a bad trade-off.

10 days and counting

May is a gorgeous month here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Or at least it is gorgeous south of the City.  This weekend it was nearly 80F at my house, but a jaunt into the City uncovered a dampy, foggy wind and temperatures in the 60s. Needless to say, I didn't stay there long.

The pregnancy is going remarkably well, I'm told. No signs of preeclampsia, no gestational diabetes, I've kept my weight down, and all my bloodwork looks good. The latest ultrasound shows the baby in the desired head-down position. But at 38 weeks, I'm getting worn out, and the baby isn't showing any signs of wanting to make an appearance. My feet have started to swell, so I'm wearing flip-flops most of the time -- not the most stable footwear for someone who can't see her toes anymore. I've got a permanent crick in my pelvis/low back that sometimes turns into a sharp knife-like pain when I'm out walking--so I'm sticking close to home these days. It is getting more and more difficult to find food that agrees with me, so I'm mostly eating frozen greek yogurt, trail-mix, and rice with a bit of milk. My nose sometimes bleeds for no apparent reason, and my ring and pinky fingers are getting numb and tingly. These are all things that are known to go with pregnancy so I'm not worried, just tired.

This weekend I put together the last of the baby-related furniture and got things organized so that changing and dressing him should be relatively easy. I hope. I've been going through closets and dressers and dropping things off at GoodWill. Cleaned the guest room and prepped it for my my parents' upcoming visit. My step-mother is a nurse and it will be good to have her with me for the delivery. Moved most of the cleaning supplies out from under the sinks to the garage (it's never too early to start developing new habits). We've still got some bins to go through from the move into the house a year ago, but some of that will have to wait.

Our friends and family have been so generous with regards to baby gifts that I've had to add things to the baby registry. I'm not big on accumulating things that we won't need or use until months down the road, so most of what has been on the registry list has been newborn through 3 month needs. Our living room is full of cardboard boxes from Amazon -- we've been breaking them down and recycling them for weeks but more keep coming.

I'm already working on my to-do list once the baby is born. There are a lot of things I just can't do right now. Or don't want to do because it might bother the baby inside me. Like using the circular saw :)  I want to finish building the side panels on the rolling bamboo gate that camouflages the garbage bins, but handling lengths of lumber and using power tools isn't a good idea right now. I've also got a burning desire to move the gorilla storage racks in the garage, and that will have to wait, too. And planting. I've got a 40 foot long planting bed along the back of the house but I don't have what it takes to plant and maintain it right now, so I've held off on the tomatoes and carrots and snap peas. Plus, I need to dig down and put some hardware cloth in place to keep the gophers/moles out of the garden.

Well, time to finish this up. I've got plumbers coming in to fix the leak in the master bath soon. And I need to go over the bids for the sewer lateral work we're having done. And take my neighbor to the doctor this afternoon (she just got out of the hospital a few days ago). And then I get to nap :)

On being Pro-life and Pro-choice

I am an ordained minister and I advocate for women's rights. I consider myself both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

Allow me to explain this seeming paradox:

Pro-Choice
I believe in a woman's right to exercise control over her own body, and to determine for herself and her unborn child if the pregnancy should proceed or not. I believe -- no, I know -- that such a decision is not an easy one... I know this not only from conversations with women who have wrestled with this, but from my own personal experiences these past couple of months.

Finding myself unexpectedly pregnant in my 40s was very difficult. It felt like a mixed-blessing. My background in genetics made me all too aware of the higher risks of genetic abnormalities in the fetus: 40 year old eggs just don't recombine and transcribe DNA as well as 20 year old eggs do.  Additionally, I'm not economically self-supporting right now. I've given up trying to find work in my previous profession while trying to build up an e-commerce business and a web content development consultancy. I'm not married to the father of the baby, and he's much younger than I am. The planet is full of wars and too many people and inhumanity and hypocrisy and indifference and environmental degradation and I really had to consider whether or not it was responsible of me to bring a child into such a heavily-burdened world.

I'm grateful I had the choice whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy if the genetic testing came back with bad news, or the baby's father didn't want the child, or I was completely destitute, or the world seemed poised on the edge of catastrophic meltdown. I'm grateful that people who think I shouldn't have that choice -- a choice exercised by women for tens of thousands of years, by the way -- don't have the power to enforce their personal preferences on me. At least for now.


Pro-Life
I believe that life is a wondrous thing, be it a single-celled bacterium, a seedling, or a fetus. I cherish it. I see God in it. I understand that even as this planet seems to be teeming with life, life as we recognize it is incredibly rare in this universe. I believe that if a pregnant woman has the ability and resources to raise a child in a safe, healthy environment, that she should proceed with the pregnancy. But in contrast with most people who self-identify as Pro-Life, my advocacy doesn't begin at conception and end at birth.

The born need Pro-Life advocacy as well, and it is my belief that if we focus on seeing that the basic needs of all born persons are met from birth forward, we'll have a world in which women won't see abortion as a necessary evil. I believe it is near-sighted and irresponsible to focus on preventing women from being able to choose whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy while ignoring the reasons why so many women see abortion as a necessity.

Simply put, I believe that people who are truly Pro-Life dedicate themselves to finding solutions to the reasons behind the perceived need for abortion instead of targeting the procedure and the women who consider it. Otherwise we're at best treating the symptoms of social ills while perpetuating the cycle we're trying to break. We need to get off our self-righteous soapboxes and hold out our hands to those in need of hope, means, and improved circumstances. We must not only recognize the need to change the world for the better, but to actually work at making it a better place to live and raise children. Anyone who does less isn't really Pro-Life -- he or she is just a small-souled hypocrite looking for a way to feel better about himself and his inaction by making others 'wrong.' And that isn't going to win anyone points Heaven -- In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned against such hypocrisy, stating there would be no reward from the Father who is in Heaven for self-righteous posturing (Matthew 6:1-6).

To my Evangelical Pro-Life counterparts
We live in a world in which women are routinely raped, abused, condescended to, economically disadvantaged, and politically disempowered. Telling women they're going to burn in hell for aborting a pregnancy when they're already living in difficult -- if not hellish -- circumstances is not the way to inspire unfortunate women to bring a new life into the world.

Jesus was a radical advocate in the fair treatment of women, especially for his time. He trusted women. He accepted women into his inner circle, he taught women (even prostitutes!), he treated them as equals, and perhaps most importantly, the first people he revealed himself to after the Resurrection were women (Matthew 28:9-10). Do you think he forgot that when most of his male followers had fled the scene, it was women who held steadfast to bear witness to his crucifixion? Be careful in your thoughts and attitudes and actions towards women, pregnant or not. I've a feeling come Judgement Day many millions of Christians are in for an unpleasant surprise.

If you are truly Christian, you will be loving toward those who are poor or troubled in spirit, and even those whom you consider your enemies and evil-doers. For even as Christ's blood washed away the sins of humanity, he passed down a new and very simple law: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34-35) "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting nothing in return; and your reward in heaven will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men." (Luke 6:35)

Christians do not condemn nor judge. It is not our place. We are told this time and again in the scriptures. ("He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her." John 8:7) We are told to forgive, lest we be denied forgiveness ourselves. "But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." (Matthew 6:15) How can we condemn others (ie abortionists) and expect that we will be forgiven for that when Jesus unequivocally states that he will not do so?

And lastly, ignore Matthew 25:31-46 at your peril. Remember, Jesus proclaimed that how you treat the unfortunate is how you treat Jesus himself, and if you fail to help the least of these, he promises to send you to the place of eternal fire where the devil dwells. We can interpret "the least of these" to include the unborn (though Jesus never explicitly spoke of children not born) but to exclude the born in your powerful concern is a willful denial of Jesus instruction that does lead straight to Hell. The Bible tells us so.

A final bit of food for thought: When it comes to reproductive organs, there are equivalencies between men and women: penis and clitoris, testicles and ovaries. But with regards to the uterus, God entrusted only women with wombs. He must have had His reasons for this trust in women, and I do not think that what women do with their wombs or His Trust should be questioned. It is between Woman and God.

Boycotting the Susan Komen For The Cure Foundation

I support the organization Planned Parenthood, and am deeply disturbed by the choice made by the Susan B Komen Race For The Cure Foundation to cut ties with Planned Parenthood due to political pressure from Right-To-Life activists.

I first used Planned Parenthood's services when I was 18. I had a basic knowledge of my reproductive system through my parents and my schooling, but I'd recently become sexually active and I was concerned about STDs, pregnancy, testing for both, etc, not to mention privacy and costs. I had my first pelvic exam at Planned Parenthood in 1986, for free. I received compassionate counseling on reproductive care, birth control, and AIDS infection prevention. AIDS had just started making the news and no one I knew had any definitive answers in those pre-information age days, so Planned Parenthood was a blessing.

I worked for years at an inner-city boys and girls club, and we had a problem in that city: Pre-teen girls were getting pregnant. So we put together a program to teach girls in the 9 to 13 age bracket about self-esteem and saying 'No' and about reproductive health. Planned Parenthood was an invaluable resource to us.

Until January, I supported the Susan B Komen Foundation, even despite the organization's uncharitable legal action against other cancer-related fundraising groups using the "For The Cure" phrase that they've apparently copyrighted. Cancer has blighted my family for generations and I was delighted to donate to an organization that focused on both cancer and women's health. But their choice to bow to political pressure from people who do not support women's reproductive rights has turned me from a supporter to an active anti-Komen activist. Planned Parenthood is one of the few organizations that provides no-strings-attached (ie apolitical, non-religious) women's health -- and thus women's breast health -- care to poor and young women. And for the Komen Foundation to cut off funding for breast-health services at Planned Parenthood is inexcusable.

I'm doing my best to raise awareness of how reproductive politics has invaded the Komen Foundation and which side they've chosen to take. I'm doing my best to raise awareness of how, in choosing sides on an issue tangential to it's stated cause, The Komen Foundation is no longer serving it's mission to bring universal screening and breast cancer treatment to all women.

While this controversy is still roaring, please re-consider your support of the Komen Foundation. Stop buying Breast Cancer Pink Ribbon products like these. Contact the Komen Foundation  and urge them to keep reproductive rights politics out of their funding practices (see the note I submitted below). And most of all, please donate to Planned Parenthood so they can continue to provide breast cancer education and screening services to women all over America.

Thank you for reading.


Dear Komen Foundation--Shame on you for failing in your mission to support universal screening and breast health care by cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood. It is sad to realize that you've bowed to reproductive rights political pressures and tried to hide it by disguising your decision as being caused by the specious allegations and inquiry by US Rep. Cliff Stearns. Planned Parenthood is regularly audited to ensure compliance with the Hyde Amendment, and these audits have never turned up any evidence of wrongdoing.  Please keep reproductive rights politics out of your funding practices. In making this choice you are failing women all over America. Shame on you!