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