Woman or State: Who Should Control Pregnancy?

In a world with both in vitro fertilization and abortion, women can become a mother to octuplets, or forego pregnancy all together. These procedures are very controversial on ethical grounds and spark much debate. Pro-choice advocates say that women should have the right to dictate the nature and outcome of their pregnancy. On the other hand, some claim that the government has an obligation to regulate certain aspects of a woman's pregnancy to protect the rights of the living, developing fetus. Does a woman have a right to choose the route of her pregnancy? Or Does society and government have the right to regulate pregnancy for the good of the fetus? This week, I have turned my attention to the blogosphere, where I have found commentary on two pieces of legislation that have intensified this debate. The first blog post is entitled Just Call Me “Tennessee Brood Mare” by Aunt B, at the Tiny Cat Pants blog. This entry comments on a bill proposed to the Tennessee State Congress that would make it mandatory for pregnant women to undergo drug/alcohol testing if they miss prenatal appointments, deliver prematurely, miscarry, or are at risk for miscarriage, among other criteria. The motivation for the bill comes from the fact that Memphis has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the country, and lawmakers believe that drug abuse is a large contributor to the problem. The second post is entitled North Dakota House Passes Egg-as-Person Bill by Kay Steiger at the Reproductive Health Reality Check blog. This post looks at a bill proposed to the North Dakota State Congress that would define conception as the beginning of life, virtually banning abortion. Furthermore, the post looks at a similar bill proposed to the Maryland State Congress, and analyzes the viability of both bills based on the distinct political makeup of both state legislatures. My comments to these blog posts can be found below and at the original sites.

Just Call Me “Tennessee Brood Mare”
Comment

Your post very accurately describes many of the imperfections of this bill, and I agree with you on many points. The enormously high premature birth rate and infant mortality rate in Memphis and other parts of Tennessee are truly unfortunate; an infant dies in Shelby County every 43 hours. Steps must be taken to stem this tragedy. However, I agree with you in that this bill unfairly places the “blame solely on mothers” and takes away a woman's right to control their body. I am a researcher that has studied the causes of conditions such as pre-term birth and intrauterine growth restriction. Premature birth and miscarriage cannot be attributed to any singular reason-it stems from a complex interplay of factors such as environment, mental state of the mother, infection, and genetics. It is unfortunate that the writers of this bill fail to understand the complexity of these conditions and instead assume that all women who show such symptoms are guilty of drug use. The state does not and should not have a right to test you for drugs without probable cause; simply presenting with symptoms of miscarriage is not sufficient. Moreover, I agree that this bill would discourage many from seeking perinatal care at all. This law only tends to punish women; it does not actually solve the problem. Doctors are most effective in providing healthcare when they are viewed as allies working in the patient's best interest. It is not their job to police expectant mothers. This bill proposes a huge invasion of privacy and I hope that it does not pass.

I was a bit curious as to whether you think that this bill unfairly targets women of a certain socioeconomic status or race. I feel that the writers of this bill assume that drug users, many of whom are poor and black, are the only contributors to the high infant mortality rate. I find it appalling that other demographics and systemic factors that contribute to the problem have been completely ignored. Also, what do you think would be the best way to reduce infant mortality in that state? Obviously, the proposed bill is flawed and greatly reduces the right of women. But is there any other way?

North Dakota House Passes Egg-as-Person Bill
Comment

I appreciate your post describing the current push in several states to give a fertilized egg the same rights as the individual. I find it very surprising that such a definition has even been proposed. An individual person is separate, autonomous organism that is capable of surviving on its own. Based on this definition, I do not think that a fertilized egg is therefore a living individual, for it cannot survive (read: live) autonomously. The criterion of self-sufficiency to define a living individual is important. Otherwise, what is to stop one from defining a simple skin cell as an individual? It too divides, and is, to use the wording of the bill, an “organism that has the DNA of a homo sapien.” So would one be committing murder, killing an individual, when one scratches an itch and destroys skin cells? Why is it that when a woman's egg is fertilized, the contents of her uterus have the same rights as she does, even though it is physically dependent on her?

You bring up an interesting point when comparing legislation proposed in North Dakota and Maryland. It seems clear that legislators are more likely to present bills that are congruent with constituents that make their voice heard. In North Dakota, the strong anti-choice movement has “made being anti-choice legislator worthwhile.” In Maryland, however, anti-choice movements have not taken hold. Is it possible, therefore, that in states such as North Dakota where anti-choice movements are strong, organizing pro-choice lobbies may serve to counter the effect? I feel that one of the reasons that pro-choice lobbies come into play “only when Roe is challenged” is that they are largely defensive, trying to protect the right to choose. On the other hand, anti-choice movements are on the offensive, trying to limit contraception and the implications of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps if pro-choice organizations lobbied to protect other reproductive freedoms and made their presence felt is states such as North Dakota, some anti-choice sentiment would be shot down.