Legal Discrepancies and Expectations of Women: Abortion, Fetal Therapy, and NICU Care
- PMID: 37092649
- PMCID: PMC10352933
- DOI: 10.1002/hast.1472
Legal Discrepancies and Expectations of Women: Abortion, Fetal Therapy, and NICU Care
Abstract
Over the past several decades in which access to abortion has become increasingly restricted, parents' autonomy in medical decision-making in the realms of fetal care and neonatal intensive care has expanded. Today, parents can decide against invasive medical interventions at gestational ages where abortions are forbidden, even in cases where neonates are expected to be seriously ill. Although a declared state interest in protecting the lives of fetuses and newborns contributes to justifications for restricting women's autonomy with regards to abortion, it does not fully explain this discrepancy. We believe that social portrayals of women as complying with or shirking their reproductive function play a major role in explaining it. The growing divide between a woman's rights as a reproductive being and as a parent suggest that abortion restriction is rooted in a historical societal desire for women to serve as reproducers and in the corresponding fear of them abandoning this allotted role in pursuit of social equality. The Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) decision is not based in a view of abortion as a medical act occurring between a doctor and patient, as Roe v. Wade (1973) did, but decision-making about fetal therapy or NICU care is still viewed as occurring between a doctor and patient or surrogate because in this act a woman is seen as fulfilling her role as mother.
Keywords: NICU; abortion; autonomy; bioethics; fetal therapy; gender inequality; reproductive rights; women's roles.
© 2023 The Hastings Center.
Conflict of interest statement
Similar articles
-
Fetal viability as a threshold to personhood. A legal analysis.J Leg Med. 1995 Dec;16(4):607-36. doi: 10.1080/01947649509510995. J Leg Med. 1995. PMID: 8568420 Review.
-
Beyond Roe, after Casey: the present and future of a "fundamental" right.Womens Health Issues. 1993 Fall;3(3):162-70. doi: 10.1016/s1049-3867(05)80251-8. Womens Health Issues. 1993. PMID: 8274872
-
Politics of reproduction: a view from Israel on the Dobbs decision.Isr J Health Policy Res. 2023 Jan 24;12(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s13584-022-00550-9. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2023. PMID: 36694241 Free PMC article.
-
Does overruling Roe discriminate against women (of colour)?J Med Ethics. 2022 Dec;48(12):952-956. doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108504. Epub 2022 Sep 30. J Med Ethics. 2022. PMID: 36180204
-
Counseling for the option of termination of pregnancy for severe fetal anomalies in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling to remove the constitutional right to an abortion.Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023 Jun;28(3):101441. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2023.101441. Epub 2023 Apr 24. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023. PMID: 37121833 Review.
References
-
- We fully acknowledge pregnant transgender and nonbinary individuals. In this paper, we refer to “she” for simplicity’s sake, and also to highlight to the traditional gendered conception of those who become “mothers.” In so doing, we realize this may feel exclusionary for those who do not identify as “she,” but also have full pregnancy goals and reproductive capacities and rights.
-
- See: Colgrove N et al., “Prolife Hypocrisy: Why Inconsistency Arguments Do Not Matter,” Journal of Medical Ethics 47, no. 12 (2020): e58.; W. Simkulet, “The Moral Significance of Abortion Inconsistency Arguments,” Asian Bioethics Review 29, no. 1 (2021): 41–56. - PubMed
-
- Watson K, “Refusing to Force Treatment: Reconciling the Law and Ethics of Post-Viability Treatment Refusals and Post-Viability Abortion Prohibitions,” chap. 11 in Reproductive Ethics in Clinical Practice: Preventing, Initiating, and Managing Pregnancy and Delivery (Oxford University Press, 2021): 170–196.
-
- Watson 2021, 178.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous