Editorial board: Iowa Republican lawmakers' responses to overturning of Roe v. Wade are disappointing
the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, many states have implemented (or are in the process of implementing) strict abortion laws ranging from outright bans to laws that “allow” abortions but with such restrictions as to make them virtually impossible.
Looking at the reactions of our state leaders to the overturning of Roe, it is clear that our Democratic leaders want to protect a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, while our Republican leaders want to take away that right. The Iowa Democratic Party has called to codify Roe v. Wade. It is an imperfect law to be sure, but one that considers all lives — the potential life of the fetus, as well as the lives of the mother, the father and others that a pregnancy and/or child might affect.
It also happens to be most reflective of Iowans’ views on abortion, according to the statewide Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll. A truly pro-life stance involves supporting children and their caregivers throughout that child’s life. Many states enacting strict abortion laws also have poor records of supporting women and children, which is pro-birth, but not pro-life.
Many of the vaguely written, poorly reasoned and highly restrictive abortion laws being implemented across the country have already caused confusion. There have been questions about whether a child should be forced to carry her rapist’s baby or a woman suffering a miscarriage should be forced into a traumatic birth.
Republicans claim these issues are a function of doctors and hospitals misreading the law, but these laws are working exactly as intended — to scare health care providers out of performing abortions altogether. These stories are only going to get worse, as Republican leaders voice support for more extreme measures.
In Texas, the attorney general has sued the Biden administration for issuing guidance that doctors can and should perform abortions in emergencies. An Arkansas lawmaker is authoring legislation that would ban crossing state lines for an abortion. The Republican Party of Idaho has voted against adding exceptions for abortions if the mother's life is at risk to their party platform.
Some anti-choice leaders are questioning whether IUDs or the morning-after pill should be banned, while others are looking to punish people for merely providing information about abortion, and still others are entertaining murder charges and/or the death penalty for women who choose abortion. If these proposals sound cruel, if not blatantly unconstitutional, it’s because they are. They are also explicitly not pro-life.
There’s no getting around the fact that an unintended pregnancy leaves three imperfect choices: adoption, abortion or keeping the baby. It’s also important to understand that, while many women have easy and successful pregnancies, it is a process that changes the body forever — one in which many things can, and do, go wrong.
A pregnancy, whether intended or not, can be welcome news in some situations and devastating news in others. The stories of what people do in these cases and their reactions to that choice are as varied as the people who tell them.
What about the partners who have been trying for years to get pregnant only to find out midway into the pregnancy that the fetus is not viable? Should the state force them to carry to term even though the baby will be stillborn, or worse, suffer for a few days before death? Or should that awful decision be left to the devastated parents and their doctor?
Should a woman in an abusive relationship, or one who has been raped, be forced to have a baby that will tie her to her abuser for life? Should a young person with no means of support be forced to have a baby before they are physically, emotionally or economically ready?
What hoops should a woman who miscarries be forced to jump through to prove she did not induce it? How many men have no idea that their lives could have been irrevocably affected had their sexual partner not made a choice?
Given the personal nature of pregnancy, why do so many Republican leaders think they can enforce their religious, moral or ethical views on the rest of us? Furthermore, do we really think they will stop at abortion?
When asked about codifying marriage equality and contraception, many Republican senators, including Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, refused to fully support the idea, with a litany of half-baked reasons. If we start limiting interstate travel for abortions, what’s to stop us from limiting it for other issues, such as gambling, marijuana use, setting off fireworks, or any other of a large set of behaviors where regulations vary from state to state?
Iowans, like many Americans, have complicated views when it comes to abortion, though a majority believe it should be legal in most or all cases. Yet, the Iowa Supreme Court has already given lawmakers latitude to enforce restrictive laws, and Republicans are projected to retain control of all levels of state government.
Iowans should not kid ourselves — if this happens, we will join the ranks implementing draconian abortion laws that will drag our state backwards. Iowa U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley told the Des Moines Register overturning Roe "empowers the people, through their accountable elected representatives to make commonsense policy decisions."
The Iowa GOP continues to prove they are pro-birth but not pro-life, so listen to Grassley and campaign and vote for elected leaders who truly value the lives of women and children.
The Iowa City Press-Citizen Editorial Board is a volunteer group of readers who meet weekly. They are Venise Berry, Dave Bright, Shams Ghoneim, Robert Goodfellow, Kylah Hedding and John Macatee.
This article originally appeared on Iowa City Press-Citizen: Editorial board: Iowa Republicans' responses to Roe are disappointing
