There is never a valid reason to vote ‘yes’ to end the innocent life of another human being, as the Arkansas abortion amendment would do.
There is never a valid reason to vote ‘yes’ to end the innocent life of another human being, as the Arkansas abortion amendment would do.
A s part of their campaign for an amendment to the Arkansas constitution that would remove virtually all protections for the unborn in the state, amendment supporters are making whatever arguments they can. Some of these arguments may seem stronger than others. But they don’t hold up to closer examination.
Take the difficult issue of the availability of abortion for victims of rape and incest, for example. The reality is about 1 percent of women get an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and fewer than 0.5 percent do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
These evil and horrible acts demand full legal punishment for the guilty. The victims — specifically, the women — should receive unwavering support throughout their arduous journey. However, there’s a second victim often overlooked: the unborn child. Is this innocent baby culpable for the circumstances? Given the difficulty of this subject, would you vote to end the life of an unborn child who bears no guilt, a situation the amendment would enable? Considering the desire of many young parents to adopt infants, wouldn’t adoption be a sensible alternative if raising the child is too painful for the mother?
Arkansas Abortion Amendment proponents also raise the difficult issue of genetic disorders. As with rape and incest, the percentage of induced abortions due to genetic disorders is very small. According to the late Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor emeritus of medical genetics at Mayo Medical School, 16-year-old girls giving birth have a 1 in 570 chance of having a baby with a serious or fatal birth defect. In other words, 99.83 percent of their babies are born perfectly healthy. As the mother’s age increases, the incidence of serious or fatal birth defects rises but still remains low. At age 35, pregnant mothers can expect a 99.48 percent probability of having a perfectly healthy baby, and at 40, the probability is 98.4 percent.
Parents of children with genetic disorders must often deal with multiple medical conditions, therapies, medical equipment, and medications. One parent may end up providing full-time care. Emotional and financial demands can be overwhelming. Despite these challenges, parents typically choose to love and care for their babies, even when the genetic disorder is fatal.
The ethical question arises: Should parents of a disabled child be allowed to withhold food and water, potentially leading to the child’s death? In my time as a pediatrician, not once did a parent ask me to have their child taken away, much less have the child euthanized. When the hardships are considered, if genetic disorders justify ending the life of the unborn, what prevents similar decisions after birth? Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer, who believes euthanasia is acceptable in cases of unremitting suffering, notes that U.S. neonatologists occasionally practice it but rarely report it due to fear of prosecution. The definitions of suffering and quality of life remain ambiguous enough in some quarters to render them subject to creative interpretation.
Supporters of abortion often argue that it is safer than childbirth, emphasizing a woman’s right to choose. But consider this report from the National Institutes of Health (NIH):
In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth. In the United States, the death rate from a legally induced abortion performed at 18 weeks gestation is more than double that observed for women experiencing vaginal delivery.
The same Finland study reported that, “compared with women who carried to term, post-abortive women were two to three times as likely to die within a year, six times as likely to commit suicide, four times as likely to die from an accident and fourteen times as likely to be murdered.” Abortion is not so safe for women, and it is 100 percent unsafe for the unborn.
The Arkansas Abortion Amendment claims the way to save a woman’s life in an emergency is through induced abortion (it would amend the constitution to prevent the obstruction of abortion when, among other situations, “in a physician’s good-faith medical judgment, abortion services are needed to protect a pregnant female’s life or to protect a pregnant female from a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury”). That’s not true. I never attended an emergency delivery, natural or cesarean, in which the obstetrician did not aim to save the mother’s life as well as her baby’s life, if at all possible. In treating their high-risk moms in emergencies, they found ways of respecting the “health and dignity of both.” The amendment goes against what these good doctors strive for by suggesting direct abortion instead of natural or cesarean delivery.
Parents, in particular, should be concerned about the consequences of the Arkansas Abortion Amendment. The American Academy of Pediatrics supports an “adolescent’s right to decide the outcome of their pregnancy and the people who should be involved.” Amendment proponents openly include “girls” as a reason for the amendment. They say this amendment is intended to help protect women and girls.
But the amendment would make it possible for Arkansas teens to bypass their parents to get an abortion with only the support of their pediatrician. This is problematic. Teens aged 13 to 19 account for 8 percent of these “women” who had abortions, according to a 2023 study by Pew Research. That comes out to nearly 75,000 teen abortions annually, according to 2020 data. Your teenage daughter could be that child. Voters should consider what the amendment aims for. Is this really what parents would want for their child?
Could you vote to end any baby’s life, born or unborn, wanted or unwanted, normal or disabled, or a baby that may be the product of rape or incest? The answer should be obvious. There is never a valid reason to vote “yes” to end the innocent life of another human being. And there is no valid reason to place unrestricted abortion in the Arkansas constitution.