There was a law passed in Texas recently that was just upheld by the supreme court that mandates that all abortion providing doctors must have admission privileges at a hospital within 30 miles from the location of the procedure in order for it to be considered a legal abortion.
At first glance, the justification for the law seems tom make sense; it is supposed to ensure that the abortion is safe by making sure that if there is a complication, the doctor will be able to take the patient straight to the hospital. It also seems on the surface to be much less paternalistic than other types of restrictions such as waiting periods.
When you think further about the real reasons for the law, it becomes clear that it is highly restrictive. As we mentioned in our class discussion, laws like this make it much harder for women living in rural areas to have abortions. Even if exemptions were made for these cases, however, the law would still be completely unjustified. The majority of other outpatient procedures, many of which are much more dangerous, do not have the same requirements. On top of this, legal abortion providers must also be licensed and provide abortions in official clinics that are capable of dealing with most complications.
After deeper analysis, it becomes clear that this law too is not actually aimed at protecting women, but is instead designed for the sole purpose of restricting women's right to choose.
I too think it is a restrictive law. I also believe that having an abortions is an individual women right to decide.
ReplyDelete