Bri Kirkham is a senior telecommunications and journalism news major and writes "Miss Brihavin'" for the Daily News. Her views do not necessarily agree with those of the newspaper. Write to Bri at bmkirkham@bsu.edu.
It hasn’t been a good year to be a woman in Indiana. And honestly it never is, especially when Mike Pence is our governor.
He recently signed HB 1337 into law, which is being called one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.
The legislation states doctors cannot provide abortions “solely because of:
(1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or
(2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.”
Let’s break that down:
First, it’s important to understand that there is an extreme lack of evidence even suggesting women seek abortions because of race or sex at all. It just doesn’t happen. This is a ruse; disguising legislation as anti-discriminatory when it actually strengthens the limitations of women.
But more importantly, the second part of the law is such an extreme restriction, only one other state has adopted it. It’s so restrictive that self-proclaimed pro-life conservatives oppose it.
This legislation would require at-risk, pregnant women to endure complications by carrying their fetus to term. It’s so severe that a doctor could be sued for wrongful death by providing women with abortions.
 |
|---|
News outlets across the country have been covering this issue since the law was introduced, many claiming that democrats and republicans alike are against it. And while the political parties oppose different parts of the legislation for different ideological reasons, it’s true. This isn’t a partisan issue.
I wasn’t able to attend the women’s rights rally in Indianapolis, which was organized to protest HB 1337, but I’m playing catch-up by reading all the available coverage of it.
After watching the DN’s video of protesters arguing with each other, I honestly found the issue a little comical. One pro-life protester said, “I actually think this is a bad law, too, but for different reasons than they do.”
I know it’s a stretch, but I wonder what we could accomplish if our differences could be set aside just this once. It would be incredibly powerful to see pro-lifers and pro-choicers working together to end this restrictive and ineffective legislation.
After all, pro-life is not the opposite of pro-choice. Rather, being pro-life means to believe half of what pro-choicers believe. Choice rhetoric also means believing in the right to life – or not – whatever is best for the mother.
If activists across party lines can agree at least on one thing – that a mother’s health and safety is more important than that of her fetus – we should be able to work together to abolish this law.
