Full confession — this is my first diary post on Daily Kos, and I’m typing it without knowing if I’ll actually click “Publish” or chicken out and delete it. I also don’t know how coherent it’ll be. Parts of it are likely to be random. I might jump from one tangent to another, but they’re all related somehow. I’ll include citations where I’m citing facts or statistics, but much of this might just be feelings (I have a lot of those, and they’re not all easy to sort out).
Let’s start with… I’m Catholic, in practice as well as name. I’m also a student of history, and hold a Master’s in Public Health. Going by my faith alone, I should be happy about Roe being overturned, right? But I’m not. I’m not and I never will be, and my faith alone does not shape my views.
Do I wish for an idealistic future where abortion services wouldn’t be necessary because individuals able to become pregnant would have access to all the contraceptive care they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies, everyone could make a living wage so that they could support a wanted family (including proper prenatal and post-natal care), victim-blaming would be a thing of the past and men would learn and respect the definition of consent (as well as possessing at least a passing knowledge of basic biology so as not to think that the female body “has ways to try to shut the whole thing down”)? Of course!
(Side note — my definition of consent, as it applies to sex — an explicit “yes,” where no involved individual of any gender is underage, impaired by drugs or alcohol, threatened, coerced or otherwise unable to willingly agree to the encounter. An inability to say “no” does not in any way imply consent.)
I work for a hospital system that — while not a provider of abortion services — is now setting its OB/GYN department back on a pre-Roe footing. This means preparing providers to see and treat any and all complications from attempted at-home abortions or abortions done by unlicensed individuals in unsafe conditions. And I’ll be blunt — this hurts. This should not be necessary. Overturning Roe won’t eliminate abortions in the states that have bans — it will just increase patients’ desperation and make obtaining an abortion more dangerous.
Wisconsin doesn’t have a “trigger law” as such, in that our state didn’t pass any laws specifically anticipating that Roe would be overturned. Our Legislature did, however, fail to even consider revoking one that was already on the books. They were called into special session by Governor Evers and gaveled out in fifteen seconds. This means that Wisconsin now has to operate under the following law, from 1849:
940.04 Abortion.
(1) Any person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class H felony.
(2) Any person, other than the mother, who does either of the following is guilty of a Class E felony:
(a) Intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child; or
(b) Causes the death of the mother by an act done with intent to destroy the life of an unborn child. It is unnecessary to prove that the fetus was alive when the act so causing the mother's death was committed.
(5) This section does not apply to a therapeutic abortion which:
(a) Is performed by a physician; and
(b) Is necessary, or is advised by 2 other physicians as necessary, to save the life of the mother; and
(c) Unless an emergency prevents, is performed in a licensed maternity hospital.
(6) In this section “unborn child" means a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive.
As you can see, there is an exception to protect the life of the mother, though it leaves a great deal of room for interpretation on where the “life-saving” line is, and who can/might/will object to the attending and consulting physicians’ judgment call on that line. There is no exception to protect the health of the mother, or for cases of rape or incest, and no exception for fatal fetal abnormalities (so, if I’m interpreting that correctly, even if the mother and her medical providers KNOW the child will be stillborn or will die very shortly after birth, she will still be forced to carry to term — or if they know that the abnormality is such that the mother will miscarry, this law would force her to just… wait for that inevitability).
So… why am I not actually discussing the choice itself? Because my faith is my own, and I have no right to attempt to force anyone else to follow it. I have never faced any of these situations personally. I have never been in a position where I would have to make that choice. Though I believe that I personally would not choose to have an abortion barring absolute medical necessity (maybe not even then — I don’t know) — until now, that still would have been my choice in a way that it no longer is, thanks to SCOTUS and the Wisconsin Legislature. It is not one that I can or should force on others. And it is not one that states should be making for their citizens, as if women are not fully-realized individuals in and of ourselves. My faith — frankly — has no business in anyone else’s bedroom or inserted in anyone else’s conversations with their doctor.
That’s not even getting into what this ruling might mean for contraceptive care, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and LGBTQ+ health…
Where are we going to go from here?
Right now, I have no idea...