In passing a law to extend new rights to
fetuses, state representatives might believe they are laying the
groundwork for a ban on abortion if the Supreme Court overturns the Roe
v. Wade decision. But lawmakers apparently haven't considered the full
ramifications of this bill.
Under a bill passed in the House recently, criminals who harm
pregnant women could face charges for hurting the fetus. Supporters of
the bill say it gives the unborn the same protection under the law as
people.
A law that allows prosecution of those who assault pregnant women and
harm their fetuses likely has widespread appeal, but there are many ways
to harm a fetus.
For example, this bill could open the door to prosecution of women
who harm their babies by smoking, drinking alcohol or even drinking too
much coffee during their pregnancy. Using illegal drugs can harm a
fetus, but so can the misuse of many prescription and over-the-counter
remedies.
Fetal alcohol syndrome, alone, is one of the most common and
devastating problems afflicting newborns. Do state lawmakers intend to
prosecute all women who drink while pregnant?
Would women be sent to jail if they fail to wear a seat belt and
their fetuses are harmed in an auto accident? Would nicotine addicts who
smoke throughout their pregnancies be prosecuted if their newborns have
low birth weights or are otherwise adversely affected by the mother's
cigarette habit?
Obviously, sponsors of this bill don't intend for that to happen. But
how could such a law discriminate between those who harm their own or
someone else's fetus intentionally and those who do so through ignorance
or neglect? If the fetus is to have the same rights as a person,
logically protection must be extended no matter what the intentions of
those who harm the fetus.
And while supporters say this law is not designed to pave the way for
a state abortion ban, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, this law would
make no exception for terminating a pregnancy that was the result of
incest or rape or for situations where the mother's life was at stake.
Those possibilities might not be a problem for many South Carolinians,
but they need to be discussed fully.
Lawmakers could have written a much narrower bill that applied only
to fetuses harmed during the commission of a crime. By seeking to extend
virtually unrestricted rights to the unborn, this bill likely would be
unacceptable to many Americans. We hope the Senate takes a far more
cautious approach.
