Guest Author - Gina Cowley
Regarding reproductive rights, how will women be affected by advancements in medical technology in light of the ever present problem of undesired pregnancy and new changes in policy with regards to sex reassignment and fertility treatment? Given recent events involving wombs and medical ethics, the substantive law in several areas of reproductive rights will surely be debated among lawmakers and in light of public opinion and completely unexpected outcomes, changes made in the law and protocol governing reproductive rights – both civil and criminal - accordingly.
The discussion of reproductive rights must begin with an acknowledgement of the rights of others. What rights are possessed by the six siblings of the recently born and most publicized octuplets? Should the “rights” of the octuplets be considered? Are frozen embryos possessed of a “right” to be born if the mother desires it? Should the fact that the infamous mother of fourteen is unemployed, unattached, dependent upon her parents, a recipient of state aid, owes money to the government and is by now generally considered a flake enter into the equation? What if she was possessed of great wealth, owned her own home and was able to financially provide adequately for each child? Would that justly or unjustly change the public’s perception of this woman? Does a woman’s “right” to bear children depend upon her ability to adequately care for them financially, or does her ability to care properly for her children only impact her “right” to keep them?
No other issue regarding reproductive rights has been more hotly debated than abortion - the right of a woman to end a pregnancy which results in the demise of the fetus she is carrying. Due to the recent filing of a lawsuit and the publicity surrounding the recent loss of a Florida physician’s medical license, America is now horrifically aware of what the press has deemed a “botched abortion” which occurred in 2006. According to reports, an eighteen year old girl discovered she was twenty-three weeks pregnant (a week shy of the third trimester) while receiving medical treatment after a fall. She sought an abortion and during the procedure a baby girl was born alive and then allegedly bagged along with the birth waste as she struggled to breathe and finally placed into the trash by a clinic employee. It is not unheard of that babies may be viable at this stage of gestation despite the rarity of that occurring. What is unconscionable is that no one in the room was prepared for the possibility of a live birth despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1973 that a fetus might be viable given medical technology at that time as early as twenty-four weeks. There are babies that have survived birth at twenty-one weeks. Surely no one in good conscience suggests that a viable fetus is not possessed of some rights simply because it has yet to be born. Nor that an infant born alive during an abortion is simply unlucky because it was "born" during the timeframe during which the pregnancy could be and was in the process of being legally aborted.
Finally, the case which has been surrounded by controversy for several months involves the “pregnant man.” In a nutshell, Thomas Beatie in compliance with state law changed his identity from male to female. Regardless of the personal feelings one may possess where this issue is concerned, in the eyes of the law Mr. Beatie is a man who used his female reproductive organs to “father” a child. Mr. Beatie’s case is important with regards to reproductive rights inasmuch as the legal framework of documentation is concerned. He and his wife desired that they be listed on the child’s birth certificate as “father” and “mother” respectively even though Mrs. Beatie has no biological attachment to the child. In order to appease the Beaties, they were listed as “parent and parent” which is the norm for same sex couples in domestic partnerships. While the Beaties are expecting their second child and seeking to have the law changed, it is likely the state legislature is already considering amending the law where sex reassignment is concerned as the general consensus among many is simply, “men don’t have babies” and that the permanent surgery which best indicates a female’s desire to change her sex to male is a hysterectomy and not breast removal and testosterone therapy alone. While state law indicates that it is not a womb that makes a woman for purpose of sex reassignment, public opinion appears to be to the contrary.
With the advancement of medical technology and the evolution of “rights” which will accompany that advancement, America will see changes in the law regarding reproductive rights. It will behoove all citizens especially women to keep themselves keenly informed.
