Why aren’t conservatives protesting fertility clinics?

| August 18, 2015 | 5 Replies

If life begins at conception, why aren’t conservatives attacking fertility clinics?

Good question. Here’s one disturbing possibility:

As it stands, IVF patients are primarily wealthy and white, while women who seek abortions are disproportionately poor and women of color, you know, “the least of these” that the Republican anti-choice crowd has always had a penchant for regulating and condemning. These women bear the brunt of abortion restrictions far more than wealthy whites. They are more likely to use Medicaid for health expenses, which federal law prohibits from covering abortion. Travel expenses and lost wages due to time away from low paying jobs are the results of mandatory wait periods. Kaplan says.


Category: Reproductive Rights

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where he lives half-time with his two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (5)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. grumpypilgrim says:

    Maintaining a consistent moral position has little or nothing to do with the actual motives of most Conservatives. Mostly, they just want political power. They use the abortion controversy (and others, like immigration, creationism, needless war, etc.) to agitate their base, so their base will give them more money and more votes. If protesting fertility clinics would help advance that agenda, then they would protest fertility clinics. Loudly, with bullhorns and misleading banners. Apparently it doesn’t, so they don’t. Indeed, they would be attacking their own, which would violate Rule #1 for most Conservatives: loyalty matters, truth doesn’t.

  2. Ben says:

    Trump said he is okay with certain exceptions for the abortion laws. Does that mean those “babies” are less deserving of life?

  3. grumpypilgrim says:

    Ben wrote: “Does that mean those ‘babies’ are less deserving of life?”

    I don’t know what Trump believes and don’t much care. But Ben’s comment ignores an important point. Even if we agree that a fetus is a “baby” (or a “child” or a “person,” etc.) that doesn’t address the abortion question. The abortion question is where to balance the rights of the mother (who is a person) with the rights of the fetus (whose person-hood is subject to considerable debate). Plainly, Ben is a person, yet Ben has no right to force any other persons (even his own mother) to keep him alive with their organs. Ben’s right to life does not give him the right to force someone else to provide that life. A fetus, even as a “baby” is no different. Indeed, no *actual* baby (or child or person, etc.) has the right to force other people to donate the use of their organs to keep it alive.

  4. Ben says:

    What if there was a parallel universe (such as south carolina) where people believe that the rights of “baby” do take precedence over the rights of their mother? (rather convenient for men, noted)

    I wasn’t ignoring that point (personhood argument). I just didn’t want to start there because the word/definitions such as “person” “baby” “life” (and scientific terms of course) are not used the same way by each side. I was just trying to find a quick gotcha to make lifers think a bit more. Sort of turning things around. This remains a controversial issue – there isnt really a grey area so I’m trying to explore both sides’ arguments.

    Which trimester is it illegal/bad/wrong to have abortion, if at all? Responses seem to vary quite a bit, just sayin’.

  5. grumpypilgrim says:

    Ben asked, “Which trimester is it illegal/bad/wrong to have abortion, if at all?

    we should start by remembering that the trimester paradigm is a legal construct, not a biological one. Fetal development is a continuous process, which makes for subjective abortion laws, so to create a relatively bright line the trimester paradigm was created, where the rights of the unborn fetus gradually shift from being the woman’s choice (first trimester) to the government’s (third trimester). In the second trimester, cases are to be examined individually. I believe the trimesters were originally based on viability, though the progress of medical science has pushed that far from where it was in the 20th century.

    As regards the question of right and wrong, that question seems to be rarely debated. Self-proclaimed “right to life” folks universally try to avoid it, instead substituting a different question: when does life “begin.” That question is a subterfuge — it replaces the moral question with a biological one. Conveniently (for them) it also completely excludes the woman, and her rights as a “person,” from the debate. The real question is how should the rights of the pregnant person be balanced against the rights of the unborn fetus. There is no clear answer, though there are plenty of people (seemingly mostly men) who insist otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.