Editor: Proposition 115 seeks to ban abortion based on a minimum 22-week gestational age. The ballot title reads in part, “…except when the abortion is immediate required to save the life of the pregnant woman when her life is physically threatened, but not solely by a psychological or emotional condition….”.
At no point does Proposition 115 provide specific exception for rape, incest, or lethal fetal diagnosis. And what of individuals facing a potential, though not immediate, life threatening situation should pregnancy continue, e.g. cancer treatment vs. continuing pregnancy? Or those faced with carrying to term a pregnancy knowing a lethal fetal diagnosis will deliver not a healthy, viable infant, but an infant who dies after a brief and painful life?
If one goal of Proposition 115 is reducing abortions related to unwanted pregnancy, is it not preferable to focus on, and invest in, proven solutions such as full, equal access to reproductive and general healthcare education and services?
The place for government, or any organization in healthcare, is ensuring equal access to quality education and services for all people, across all disciplines. Individuals and those they chose to journey with them are the only people rightfully involved in any healthcare decision.
I’m voting NO on Proposition 115 to prevent this cruel and wholly unacceptable violation of the most deeply personal, private healthcare decision anyone may face.
— Sharon Groten, via [email protected]
Discussion about this post