As the independent in this election, I have the unique responsibility to remind everyone that it’s very helpful to begin this question with the perspective that each side is driven by love. And when we do that, it’s much more difficult to make monsters, or caricatures of each other. I believe the vast majority of people on both sides want the best for everyone involved, we want women to have choice over their bodies. And we want babies to be welcomed in this world by families who choose them, and love them, and can take care of them. My first priority is to encourage us all to remember that we do share this common ground and that can help us disagree on this without polarizing so divisively.
But my primary logic as a public servant is that it is a dangerous precedent to allow the government authority over our medical decisions. So if I have to remove all the nuance for the sake of a quick answer, then I support the right to choose because I don’t want the government dictating our personal medical decisions. However, if I get to keep some nuance, there are some aspects of this debate I do find morally complicated, and I am willing to leave some grounds for those debates to happen at the state level.
Pre-fetal-viability abortion, to me, is a healthcare option that is a part of bodily autonomy and it should be available to all women regardless of your state’s political or cultural makeup. I think this right to bodily autonomy is already protected by the constitution in multiple ways. But clearly the courts disagree. So, the options to affirm that right are:
1) A constitutional amendment explicitly affirming our right to govern our own bodies.
2) A federal law that supersedes the state laws.
3) Changing the make up of the Supreme Court.
I am in favor of all three. I would prefer the first. The second is the most realistic.
“But what about late term abortions"? Like almost everyone, I am repulsed by the idea of a 9 month pregnancy being aborted for trivial or heartless reasons. However, I am also aware that only 1.3% of abortions happen in the second half of pregnancies (post 21 weeks), and any abortion in the last trimester is an exceedingly rare event. Basic logic, and my experience as a parent tells me that almost every single person who has carried a baby to the third trimester intends to keep that baby, and only a fetal anomaly or other tragic situation has made a later term abortion a decision they had to consider.
I don’t believe these tragic situations require further government intrusion in our most personal decisions. Ironically, one thing that would prevent more late term abortions, while protecting the choice of women, would be more access to early abortions and contraception, which I support.
However, I concede that post-viability abortion is a morally complex issue. While, personally, I err on the side of protecting choice, I also see where each state should have some leeway to decide this issue. I’d prefer to live in a state that enshrines protection for bodily autonomy throughout the pregnancy, and gives people the benefit of the doubt that any late term abortion is not the parent’s first choice. But I also accept that post viability abortion has legal implications for the unborn child, and that determining that issue on a state by state basis is a reasonable compromise.
I also honor the potential compromise that no one with strong religious views against abortion should be forced to pay for post viability abortion services.
AND, yet more nuance… if state’s do decide to regulate post viability abortions, I think the federal government should mandate that such states should also be responsible to make adoption and maternal care extremely accessible and affordable.
This issue is divisive enough to severely wound our political and cultural cohesiveness. I am aiming for a policy position that the great majority of people, on both sides, can agree with, as a compromise, in order to preserve our future as a functional political entity. That compromise is briefly summarized here:
Universal abortion protection pre fetal viability
Universal access to contraception
States decide on legality of abortion post fetal viability (3rd trimester), yet universal protection for rape victims, or the health of the mother
No one who opposes abortion on religious grounds is forced to pay for it
Where post viability abortion is illegal, adoption, maternal care and child care is extremely accessible/affordable. (Although I believe these things should be accessible regardless of a state’s stance on abortion).
Regarding my stance on Proposition 5, a Vermont Constitutional Amendment codifying reproductive autonomy, clarification is in order. I am in principle in favor of protecting the mother’s choice in the second half of pregnancy for the reasons stated above. I have had some discussions with fellow Vermonters who share my general support for that right, and who have pointed out the language of the law is too broad and vague to be good policy. Having heard their arguments, I have been persuaded to that position. I think it would take some minor adjustments to make this a much more clearly defined proposition, for which I would vote. But as it stands now, I would vote against it on the grounds of wanting to avoid potential unintended consequences due to the bill’s imprecision in language.