Pubdate: Thu, 05 May 2005
Source: Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC)
Copyright: 2005 Sun Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/987
Author: Sue Veer, and Letitia Johnson
Note: Authors are in the S.C. Women's Health Coalition
Note: apparent 150 word limit on LTEs
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/women.htm (Women)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?175 (Pregnancy)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

RIGHT TO LIFE ACT

S.C. Hounds Women But Doesn't Help

With the so-called Right to Life Act, the S.C. General Assembly is
sending a clear message that women, particularly pregnant women,
should not expect consideration from the majority of the state's leaders.

This bill, already passed in the House and soon to be considered in
the Senate, establishes that the right to due process and equal
protection of the law vests at fertilization. Supporters have made
clear that its purpose is to lay the groundwork for outlawing abortion.

It would be a terrible mistake, however, to think this legislation is
only about abortion. It also appears to ban popular forms of
contraception and would significantly extend the state's power to
police and punish pregnant women.

Many supporters of this law believe (incorrectly) that emergency
contraception and the birth control pill end a pregnancy. Although
both prevent a pregnancy from occurring, an amendment that would
permit only rape victims to use emergency contraception suggests that
this bill is intended to prevent all other women from using these
contraceptive methods. The result would be more unwanted pregnancies,
more abortions.

The bill, S. 111, also creates the legal foundation for policing
pregnancy and punishing women who seek to carry their pregnancies to
term. Under existing judicially created law, South Carolina already
views viable fetuses as persons. The impact of this existing law has
not resulted in the protection of fetuses but rather the punishment
and arrest of pregnant women and new mothers.

The primary targets of the state's already extensive fetal-protection
laws are pregnant women and new mothers who need drug treatment and
mental health services. As a result, scores of women in South Carolina
who could benefit from treatment and who have no intention of harm
have been arrested, some escorted from hospitals in chains and
shackles. This punitive and extraordinarily expensive approach has
deterred pregnant women from seeking necessary prenatal care. Today,
South Carolina has one of the highest infant-mortality rates in the
country.

With current fetal-protection laws, one solicitor warned: "Even if a
legal substance is used, if we can determine you are medically
responsible for a child's demise, we will file charges." Under the
bill, the pregnant woman who "allows" herself to be battered, who
smokes a cigarette, misses prenatal care appointments or engages in
sports activities is now vulnerable to prosecution for murder should
something go wrong, even at the earliest stages of pregnancy.

S.C. Rep. John Graham Altman, R-Charleston, has suggested only
"liberals" would challenge this law. Altman might be surprised to also
find opposition from South Carolinians who, like John and Amber
Marlowe, oppose abortion on religious grounds.

As this Pennsylvania couple learned last year, the fetal rights that
would be established by the bill can be used to force a pregnant woman
to submit to unnecessary surgery that poses increased risk to both the
pregnant woman and the fetus. Amber Marlowe fled a hospital that was
about to force her to have a Caesarean section she knew she did not
need. She delivered a healthy baby naturally.

In another case, Nikki S., a South Carolinian, attempted suicide
because she was desperate and hopeless. She survived but lost her
pregnancy. Did the state of South Carolina offer support? No, she was
arrested as a murder suspect. The bill would make a woman who
miscarried her first day of pregnancy a criminal suspect. A pregnant
woman who loses a pregnancy should get medical and emotional support,
not a police interrogation.

While the legislature distracts our attention with this controversial
abortion bill, South Carolina's women suffer and die from appalling
rates of heart disease, breast cancer and cervical cancer. Rather than
passing the bill, the General Assembly should focus on the real health
and family needs of the women who bear and raise South Carolina's
children. The writers are in the S.C. Women's Health Coalition.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin