I'm not sure there is an affirmative right to an abortion. I always thought that Roe, and it's companion cases, established the right of privacy surrounding the body (in tandem with the sterilization cases, if I recall). The right of privacy that surrounds the body permits a woman to get an abortion and not be interfered with by the government- for example, the state cannot criminalize the procedure- but that's about it. It does not appear to mean she has a "right" to one- so the government does not need to make sure there are doctors willing to serve her in her area, or that hospitals are available to provide them, etc. It's pretty clear, from the states where abortions are almost impossible to get now, that there is no right to an abortion- I think the only question left is just how much the right to privacy will be whittled away, as it applies in this area- in other words, how much of a burden can be placed on women trying to end their pregnancies? With eacn new Bush nominee the answer to that question, and the eventual overturning or Roe, becomes more likely to be answered in a way that will be very negative for women who would like to have a choice.
I haven't read the recent cases in depth- but they seem to be steadily chipping away at the shreds of privacy that are left to women in this are. Please understand, I think it will be very backward of us in this country to impose a religiously fueled mandate on women to bring to term every egg they happen to have fertilized, but religious laws tend to be reactiionary, and coercive. |
