One Mother’s Perspective on Reproductive Rights

What do you think of when you think of reproductive rights? Abortion? The recent octuplet birth? Infertility treatments?

If you believe in abortion, you may believe that any restriction on abortion is illegal (e.g., against the Constitution's guarantee of privacy). If you do not believe in abortion, you may believe that any leniency of such laws are illegal (e.g., against the moral, ethical, and criminal principles of murder). With infertility treatments, the same arguments exist; believing on one side that it falls under your right to privacy, or believing on the other side that it falls under the state's right to protect life. Both sides misstate and misuse Roe v. Wade, but before beginning with the law, let us view one mother's perspective.

First, mothers are mothers because they have children, whether those children are biological or not. Even mothers who adopted their children would be saddened if they discovered that the biological mother had considered abortion. We all are deeply in love with our children and cannot imagine life without them (let alone if someone had purposefully killed them). Mothers who had previous abortions often think about their lost babies and wonder where those babies would be, especially now that they know what the bond of motherhood. Most women connect to her children before giving birth, when their babies are called "fetuses" to the scientific community. Abortion is thus a sensitive and personal topic for mothers. Childless women may not understand why it is difficult for a mother to abort one or two of eight fetuses. However, mothers can uniquely understand Nadya Suleman's decision to keep all her children once she discovered she was carrying eight fetuses. We, however, may not approve of the choices that led to that decision: Ms. Suleman's and the doctors choices to use so many fertilized eggs at one time with the risk that it would be a high multiple pregnancy.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that the government cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, but it can regulate it during the second trimester, and can prohibit it during the third trimester. If you disagree with the Supreme Court's finding, you may feel that abortion should be more restricted and you may feel that it should be less restricted. But, in any case, the government is found to have an interest in a woman's body during the third trimester of her pregnancy.  Does that mean that the government could force a selective abortion on a woman in her third trimester to reduce the number of fetuses if she is planning a multiple birth? Selective abortion proponents argue that selective abortion is necessary to protect the lives of the remaining fetuses. Does that give a doctor the right to force medical procedures, including major abdominal surgery (a cesarean section) on mothers if the doctor finds that such a procedure will be in the best interest of the fetus? Some states have already started mandatory HIV testing for all pregnant women.

In the past month, President Obama has diplomatically avoided fueling fire in these questions related to reproductive rights. Indeed, President Obama is working on bringing both sides of the abortion issue closer together by solving the problems that leave women "choosing" abortion. These problems include: lack of access to contraception, social stigma, limited resources for pregnant and single mothers, and obstacles in adoption. I applaud him for recognizing and addressing these root problems, but it is insufficient in achieving reproductive justice, particularly outside of the abortion issue, such as regulation in infertility treatments, and court-enforced medical procedures on pregnant women.