A few months ago the USA, a woman in his second three months of pregnancy, suffered serious injuries in a car accident in which they in a coma. The doctors said their family, the burden of pregnancy is physiological to the best of their leisure and at worst an obstacle to their cost of their lives. The husband of the woman comatose, are obliged better choice, decided to abortion.
Before the hospital may, however, two men, completely unknown to the woman and her family for a court to block the proceedings. Your tactics, the idea of guardianship for the fetus is not in the local courts, and abortion was performed. The latest report, the situation of women had improved.
If this is an isolated case, there might be little cause comment, except perhaps the general indignation about this flagrant interference in a private tragedy. But the two men belong to a political movement more and more powerful, the ultimate objective for illegal abortion in the USA. Now, the battle reached the Supreme Court, as the “right to life” forces are trying to remove the bullet in a woman constitutional right to abortion.
Since 1973, the Court has determined that this right in a narrow 5-4 decision Roe v. Wade, opponents have tried to curb abortion rights in different countries. However, commentators on both sides of the problem is to agree that now there is a case, the nine justices of the Supreme Court presents the greatest challenge for the decision Roe v. Wade until today.
The case concerns an act of Missouri in 1986, in which it is said that human life begins with conception, requires doctors to test the viability of the fetus of 20 weeks or more, prohibits the use of public funds for consultation or encourage a woman to break, and the prohibition of public institutions and their employees to participate in abortion, unless it is necessary to the woman for life. The State impressed by the Court of Appeals of laws defining the request Missouri Public Prosecutor-General William Webster, asking the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court lays down the law according to their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in theory, the Court is above politics. But idealism founder of the nation, have hardly expected the pressure on a pluralistic society, especially the interests struggling with refinement increasingly political, other versions of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ”
Webster says that the assertion of the Court of Auditors, Missouri, the law has no other effects on reproductive decisions as regards the right to privacy in the Roe v. Wade is based. Other contradictory: Frank Susman, Missouri, the clinic in question, that the law is of the opinion that such a decision would be the end edge of the wedge, which, for example, restrictions on the types of birth control, which prevent a fertilized egg (as defined by law as a human life) of implantation in the uterus itself.
So far, it appears that the court unswayed Webster’s rhetoric. Amazing as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor spoke against abortion, is among the skeptics. Both parties consider O’Connor’s vote as critical, Make-up of the current Court of mines four judges against four liberal Conservative who, with O’Connor in the middle. Thus, many of the absence of politics. Not only the Tribunal politicized in this regard, the Bush administration fight abortion as part of a broad agenda - sounded over the Reagan years - though on public support for family planning across the board, both the USA and in the third - World.
Even if the triumph of Missouri law, it is unlikely, given the nature of the American system, that Roe v. Wade is immediately neither. If that happens, but in future control over the abortion would be new to each country, the situation again, that before 1973. Again, in some states would ban abortion, others in a variety of circumstances. And once again, women obtain funds and abortion would be without it would not.
How could this happen in a country where 400 000 people marched in Washington earlier this month in support of the right to abortion? Perhaps it is not: public outcry is still relatively few people in this nation of 250 million that can have an influence on elected officials in Congress.
More grim aspect of the problem is in the paradoxical position vis-à-vis medicine and science as a resource to a rational solution of the abortion controversy. Many Americans who wish to obtain the latest medical technologies for the registration of newborns and very premature for the examination and treatment of the fetus in the womb of his mother. But the same people back on their backs, experts, if they believe that human life should not begin the design, or if the heart starts to beat or at another point, falls within the field of forensic interruption pregnancy.
Religious beliefs should not bear the blame for this state. The clergy can take charge of heroic measures to save the fetus and infants, then again, they can not. It does not follow logically position is that the interests of a fetus, embryo or zygote - even if science can hardly grasp Pin definition of the question of when human life begins - or equal to those of the priority d a pregnant woman.
The Reverend Howard Moody of New York, is actually a network of abortion referral to the East Coast, said recently in The Washington Post: “God is with the woman human introduction to the question of a child. I believe that God would be offended by gebärfähigen imperative … The aim is to make the contracts of women. I do not believe in a god, that the practice “.
The final irony of the abortion controversy could be done in the personal and economic devastation caused by the policy of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Your answer to abortion, adoption is part of a broad program of “strengthening the family.” One is to ask, then, like many antiabortionists is at the head of the line waiting for the poorest people, mainly black descendants of their efforts