I wish that unintended pregnancies did not exist. If I had my way, there would be no such thing as genetic disease or birth defects. Every pregnancy would involve a healthy happy mother and a perfectly formed fetus. Women would never have to make difficult choices that pit their interests and their bodies against the interests of a wholly dependent fellow-traveler. They’d never be impregnated against their will, or by a father, uncle, brother, or cousin. I wish pregnant women never had to consider what an abusive husband might do to their child, or had to worry that they couldn’t adequately provide for a child on their own. I wish couples never had to consider if they could handle a special needs child. I wish pregnant teenagers never faced violence or other severe repercussions from angry parents. But this isn’t how the world works.
Ordinarily, even ardent opponents of abortion have recognized some limits on its prohibition, usually to include exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. In Arkansas, however, they have just enacted Senate Bill 6, a law banning abortions even in cases of rape and incest. Only if the mother’s life in endangered can she legally terminate a pregnancy.
What’s particularly troubling in this case is that Gov. Asa Hutchinson actually supports rape and incest exceptions but signed the bill on Tuesday anyway.
“SB6 is in contradiction of binding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law,” Hutchinson said in a statement. “I would have preferred the legislation to include the exceptions for rape and incest, which has been my consistent view, and such exceptions would increase the chances for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Hutchinson even recognizes that the law’s uncompromising nature makes it less likely to succeed in its purpose, which is to serve as a vehicle for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Arkansas law will be challenged in federal court, and the lower courts will presumably follow current law and existing precedent to strike it down as unconstitutional. The hope for conservatives is that with Amy Comey Barrett now on the Supreme Court, they will have to votes to overturn precedent so state law will become determinative again. Hutchinson is arguing that the Court may simply let the lower court rulings stand in this case and choose a different state that includes rape and incest exceptions as their vehicle.
So, he doesn’t agree with the law on the merits or in its design, but he still put it on the books. And what if the law actually does work as intended? What if the Supreme Court upholds it? In that eventuality, Hutchinson would be responsible for an Arkansas woman having to deliver her rapist’s baby. An Arkansas girl would have to carry her uncle’s child to term. This would also be true in all other states that make no rape and incest exceptions.
This isn’t a principled position on Hutchinson’s part. It’s a toxic mix of cynicism and cowardice. It’s cowardly because he’s obviously afraid to veto a bill that is inconsistent with his own views. It’s cynical because he’s trying to be placate both sides even though he disagrees with bill’s proponents and is screwing over the bill’s opponents. It’s cynical because he’s relying on the Court to do the right thing when he could just do the right thing himself.
Finally, it’s clear that Hutchinson cares more about his political standing with conservatives than he does about the country’s women or the law. He’s taken the path of least resistance for himself with little concern for those who might be harmed.
Asa’s awful. The state legislature is filled with mostly extremists. There’s a reason Asa’s nephew, State Sen. Hendren, left the GOP and became an independent.
I have a wish list, too. I wish I would never see another crazy anti-abortion law passed. These laws are an assault on women. We are in the 3rd decade of the 21st century, for Chrissake.