Anti-abortion measure a disaster in the making

Editor,

I find it truly shameful that these anti-choice groups make women feel like murderers and killers for making decisions that they believe are best for their lives and their families. Contrary to anti-choice rhetoric, making the choice to have an abortion is difficult and often complex. And let’s not forget, it’s a decision that’s deeply personal — not a public mandate. I would never impose my choices on another woman, whose life I might know nothing about. I’m only asking that I be given the same respect.

Let me paint a very clear picture of the future if the Nov. 19 ballot measure is passed:

1) The language of the ban would give personhood to fertilized eggs, allowing for precedents that would be referenced as law if the bill passes, opening the door for the further stripping of women’s rights. The ban would create justification for banning all abortions in the future, not just late-term ones.

2) The ban provides no exception for the life of the mother unless there is already irreversible damage done to her, or if she is literally dying. Yes, you read that correctly. In pregnancies where the health of the mother is at risk, she will either be on her deathbed or have irreversible damage before the doctor is permitted to remove the fetus. This means that protecting the health of a woman who’s here and breathing right now is considered less important than the remote possibility that a fetus barely out of the second trimester could survive a premature delivery.

3) The ban does not take into account rape, incest or fetal anomalies. This means that if a doctor determines a fetus will not survive after birth, the mother will be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

4) If this passes, it will cost our city over a $1 million to fight it. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and Attorney General Gary King already said he will take the ordinance to court if it passes. Instead of our tax dollars going to help the citizens of New Mexico, that money will be thrown into a court case that has already been determined in 1973. That was three years before the first marital rape law was enacted, 13 years before the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment is a form of illegal job discrimination and 21 years before the original Violence Against Women Act.

Women should be respected enough to make these decisions without government interference. We need to move forward, not take steps back. I’m voting against the ban on Nov. 19 for myself, for my friends, for my family and for every woman I know. I support women and I trust that every woman is completely capable of making her own decisions.

Shaya Rogers
UNM student