NECESSARY ABORTIONS

Steve Chapman, in his commentary, “The challenge facing abortion-rights advocates”, missed it by a wide margin. The real challenge is exactly what he says it is not, the prevention of rare, but sometimes necessary abortions, and the health of the women who get them. Chapman admits that the upheld law will not save a single fetus from destruction. What is does do is provide the pro-life lobby with fuel to pursue their endless campaign to impose their religious and ideological vision on the majority of women who were authorized by previous Supreme Court decisions to make their own health care decisions regarding abortions, early term or otherwise.

Women understand that abortion is sometimes necessary for the health and well-being of themselves and their families. This has been the case since the beginning of time. That is why it is prevalent regardless of what restrictions are placed upon it. Such restrictions only succeed in making abortion more expensive and dangerous. Abortion also benefits society by preventing the birth of an unwanted child, an act that is arguably more moral than a societal requirement to bring every pregnancy to term.

There is nothing wrong with being against abortion as long as one doesn’t interfere with the rights of others who are pro-choice. Against abortion? Don’t have one.

Originally published in Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2007