Efforts to abolish abortion

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: It’s Thursday the 2nd of February, 2023.

You’re listening to WORLD Radio and we’re so glad to have you along today. Good morning, I’m Myrna Brown.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. First up on The World and Everything in It: the abortion debate.

The question is whether protections for unborn babies should include penalties for their pregnant mothers who seek abortion.

BROWN: WORLD’s life beat reporter Leah Savas is here to talk us through this issue. Welcome, Leah.

LEAH SAVAS, REPORTER: Thanks for having me on.

BROWN: Leah, I’m interested in learning more about what brought this issue to the forefront in recent weeks, particularly because it has roots in my home state.

SAVAS: It all started with a couple articles quoting Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall. According to both articles, Marshall said Alabama’s law protecting babies from abortion explicitly exempts mothers from prosecution if they abort their babies. But then he added that the law doesn’t mean pregnant mothers are exempt from the state’s chemical endangerment law. Under that law, people who knowingly expose children to dangerous drugs can face prosecution. Some people interpreted that to mean that Marshall would now be prosecuting women for chemical abortions under the chemical endangerment law. He later clarified that the chemical endangerment law only applies to pregnant mothers in cases where they take other illegal drugs that harm the child. But other outlets picked up the story, and the news blew up that the Alabama Attorney General was targeting women for chemical abortions.

BROWN: What was the reaction in the mainstream media?

SAVAS: A lot of pro-abortion groups were basically saying “I told you so.” Especially around the election, many pro-abortion politicians claimed in campaign materials that their pro-life opponents just wanted to put women behind bars. You might remember that TV ad from the California congressman, Rep. Eric Swalwell. It depicted a woman being arrested in front of her family at gunpoint for an abortion she had. So when this news out of Alabama broke, pro-abortion groups were saying in TV interviews and op-eds, of course! Sending mothers to jail is the next logical step in banning abortion. We knew it all along.

BROWN: How did pro-life groups respond?

SAVAS: Pretty quickly, pro-life groups like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Students for Life came out with statements clarifying that they do not support prosecuting women for abortions. I contacted the National Right to Life affiliate in Alabama, and a staff member there sent me a link to an open letter they signed last May with more than seventy other pro-life organizations. That letter was all about how those groups see the mother of an aborted child as the second victim of the abortion industry and how they oppose laws that would penalize her.

BROWN: Let’s talk about that letter. What sparked that statement from pro-life groups?

SAVAS: So the twist to this story is that there are groups that want to pass laws that would penalize women for having abortions. They call themselves abolitionists. Since 2016, lawmakers in 14 states have filed abolitionist bills, but not until last May did one finally make it out of the committee stage. That was in Louisiana. Now if you look at the language of the bill, it doesn’t even actually mention mothers. It just alters the state’s existing homicide laws so they’ll apply to the killing of unborn children. The day the full Louisiana House of Representatives was going to take up debate of the bill, the 70-plus pro-life groups issued that statement, and the bill’s sponsor pulled it from debate. It didn’t go any farther from there.

BROWN: Now Louisiana is one of 13 states with protections for unborn babies starting at conception. With laws like that in place, what is the purpose of these abolitionist bills?

SAVAS: The main abolitionist argument is that abortion is murder, and the law should treat it as murder. They want to give equal protections to humans, whether born or unborn, which means punishing anyone involved in their deaths. That’s not currently what pro-life state laws do. Almost all of those 13 state laws banning abortion explicitly say that the mother of the aborted child can’t be prosecuted.

BROWN: You mentioned the abortion pill. That’s certainly been a game-changer for post-Roe America. How do abortion pills play into this question of prosecuting women?

SAVAS: Abolitionists say the spread of the abortion pill makes this question of who can be prosecuted more of a concern now than it’s ever been. In a sense, we’re facing a future where many states have few to no abortion facilities but where any woman can easily access abortion pills online, and that's even in pro-life states. International groups are shipping abortion pills into pro-life states more than ever before. There are also abortion websites that advise women in those states how to set up mail forwarding with addresses in states where abortion is legal. That way, abortion pill distributors will be able to send them the pills without anyone knowing it’s going to a state where it’s illegal to give out those pills.

BROWN: Do you think these discussions about prosecuting women will continue moving forward?

SAVAS: Yes, I think so. Abolitionist bills have already started popping up in states again this year as legislatures continue working on this abortion issue. They’re not likely to become law at this point because they lack support from mainstream pro-life groups. But the push to pass these bills will definitely put abolitionists in the headlines again in the coming months.

BROWN: Leah Savas is WORLD’s reporter on the life beat. Thanks for joining us today, Leah.

SAVAS: Anytime.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.