Both the states of Kansas and Minnesota have constitutional rights to have an abortion. I do not know how the right was established in Kansas. But in Minnesota, it was established by a court case, Doe v. Gomez. It could be challenged by passing a proposal in the Legislature and placing an amendment on the ballot for the voters to decide. In any case, currently the right to have an abortion is established in both states. In Kansas the voters recently decided to uphold the right to have an abortion. In both states, however, if the constitutional right to have an abortion were abolished, this would not of itself prevent abortions from occurring because state legislatures have the authority to pass laws making abortions legal, illegal or legal with restrictions. It is the same throughout the United States.
The writer goes on to present a hypothetical situation where a pro-life married couple may not want their daughter to have an abortion, and the daughter would want to have an abortion. The writer adds that there is a possibility of the daughter going to prison. This is obviously a red herring, because Minnesota currently allows abortions to take place, and even if this law were changed, the daughter could go to some other state to have an abortion. The only scenario where the daughter could possibly be sent to prison would be if abortion was first made illegal in Minnesota and an abortion provider would continue to remain in operation in spite of the law, or some person who is not qualified would start doing abortions with coat hangers or whatever. Neither of these options seems very realistic, however, because it should be much easier or safer to go to another state, or Canadian province.
Robert Sullentrop, Minneapolis
Just when I thought we'd seen all the cruelty the forced birth crowd could dish out, here comes Ross Douthat ("Defeat may be just what pro-lifers need," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 9). In a stunning "the beatings will continue until morale improves" moment, Douthat comes up with this gem: "It is not enough, for instance, for opponents of abortion to react to stories about delayed care for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies by pointing out that state laws are being misinterpreted. All officialdom in those states should be mobilized to make hospitals fear malpractice suits more than hypothetical anti-abortion prosecution."
First, I checked Mr. Douthat's credentials, and if he went to law school, Wikipedia doesn't know about it. So, it's rich for him and multitudes of likewise uninformed "pro-lifers" to say, "You're misinterpreting these laws. That's not what we meant!" Those of us who do this for a living have actually read the laws in question and their plain language creates the dilemmas that Douthat and his friends now attempt to disclaim. It gives us no pleasure to have to advise clients that, no, because of the statutory wording we can't guarantee you that you won't be prosecuted if you provide appropriate care for this patient. Then Douthat suggests not clarifying the law but apparently some sort of government action to persecute civilly those who they are also threatening criminally. It's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about, because "hospitals" are not the entities being forced to choose between Scylla and Charybdis in this scenario. Rather, it is physicians, people with homes, spouses, children and livelihoods, who must decide whether they'd rather risk being sued for malpractice or prosecuted for performing an illegal abortion. The "malpractice" angle is also insulting to physicians, who become doctors to care for people and are morally injured by being prevented from doing so.
