Abortion rights groups discuss fetal viability language for 2024 election.
Debating Fetal Viability: A Crucial Goal Post for Abortion Access
Abortion rights activists are engaged in a heated debate over the concept of fetal viability as a crucial factor in protecting abortion access leading up to the 2024 election cycle.
Viability, which refers to the point at which a fetus can potentially survive outside the womb, has become a contentious issue within the abortion rights camp. This is partly due to its association with Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that established federal protection for abortion based on the viability benchmark.
A Vague Stance Sparks Criticism
Vice President Kamala Harris faced significant criticism on Sunday for her vague position on the need for Congress to codify Roe’s protections without specifying any limitations on the procedure after the viability threshold.
Many Democratic-aligned groups, including Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, have long advocated for the elimination of viability standards. They argue that the decision to have an abortion should be solely between the patient and their physician.
“The abortion rights and health movement has been compromising for about 30 years,” says Pamela Merritt of the advocacy group Medical Students for Choice. ”We have an opportunity here to build something better, and we’re not even talking about it.”
Medical Students for Choice and other groups have clashed with state-level pro-abortion organizations that aim to pass legislation or constitutional amendments protecting abortion access. These groups have taken a more pragmatic approach by accepting viability limitations.
The Viability Dilemma
The issue of viability limits has divided the abortion rights movement, with activists in states like Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota working on ballot initiatives to enshrine abortion rights in their respective state constitutions by 2024.
However, the concept of viability is fraught with scientific challenges, regardless of the political debate surrounding it.
Susan Bane, a board member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, points out that when Roe was decided in 1973, viability was only possible at around 28 weeks gestation. Today, with medical intervention, a pre-born child can survive outside the womb between 22 and 24 weeks.
Bane emphasizes that viability is a complex and multifactorial concept, influenced by factors such as the genetics of the child, the reason for early delivery, and the mother’s health at the time of delivery.
The Insufficiency of Viability as a Benchmark
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) shares a similar perspective on the limitations of viability as a benchmark.
According to ACOG, there is no definitive diagnosis or test to determine fetal viability. It is often based on clinical judgment, considering various complex factors beyond just gestational age. ACOG disapproves of all gestational age limits for abortion, including viability.
ACOG states that the concept of viability is frequently misunderstood and misinterpreted, leading to incorrect and unscientific understandings of medical terms. They argue that this interference in the practice of medicine hinders clarity in the policy discussion on abortion.
The Need for Clarity and Communication
Susan Bane believes that accurate medical language is not adequately incorporated into the policy discussion on abortion, particularly in legislation that restricts abortion access.
“There has to be clarity for the people, the healthcare practitioners, the hospital systems when legislation is written,” says Bane. “It’s almost like some of my colleagues have forgotten how to practice medicine.”
Bane also criticizes the medical profession for not insisting on clarity and adhering to once widely agreed-upon guidelines. She highlights the lack of medical care provided to those experiencing a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, which she argues is fundamentally different from an induced elective abortion procedure.
Political Implications and Public Opinion
Republican presidential candidates and senators up for reelection are also grappling with the need for greater clarity on anti-abortion policy following disappointing losses in the 2022 midterm elections after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.
A recent survey of likely voters nationwide revealed that 41% of Republican women disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe. Additionally, only 43% of Democrats support third-trimester abortion.
“You can’t get away with a label anymore,” says Sen. Cynthia Lummis. “You have to dive in and talk to people about very specifically where you stand on that subject if you’re running for public office.”
Bane believes that the turn away from the “pro-life” position is primarily due to confusion and fear, which could be alleviated through better communication about the science behind abortion.
“With the legislative chaos post-Roe, people are scared that their daughters, their granddaughters are going to die because our profession won’t take care of them when they have a medical emergency,” says Bane. “So we have to ensure the public that we know how to do our job. We may not be able to save both, but darned if we’re not going to try.”
Click here to read more from The Washington Examiner.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
