Governor’s directive issued in response to the global pandemic, COVID-19
Following the Governor’s directive issued in response to the global pandemic, COVID-19, I am faced with the task of writing concerning the enforcement of the directive mentioned above. I am seeking a slight redacting of the order with to abortion. The emergency rules issued on March 22, 2020, were a concerted effort to increase healthcare capacity in the State. It is an essential and protocols order that seeks to ensure that all unnecessary surgical and related health care procedures are halted to give precedence to the current crisis. The term unnecessary was used about processes that do not pertain to adverse life situations. In cases where life needs not to be preserved nor a life-threatening defect be corrected, the procedure is deemed not medically necessary. Governor Abbott respectfully moved that the order be put to effect as until April 21, 2020, in compliance with the directive. The order seeks to reduce social gatherings of any sort as well as ensure medical supplies are conserved for the containment of COVID-19. The State of Texas passed the order to put to effect cessation of movement. It supersedes any local orders or those that conflict about COVID-19 response. The Texas Medical Board enforced these rules almost immediately while hampering the due process. The board also clarified that the order is referent to several other procedures, including abortion, which is directly affiliated to planned parenthood procedures. The new order can, therefore, be misconstrued as another attack waged on abortion in a bid to dismember the right completely.
Planned parenthood is an issue that has gained mileage in recent times. We provide several services ranging from birth control advice, and STD tests to pregnancy terminations, among others. All these are essential healthcare services upheld by the 14th amendment. The order comes as an action that could be regarded as an attack and an intentional move to restrict abortion entirely in days to come. Abortion is a sensitive topic that needs to be handled as such. The action deems it a non-essential, which is a notion I am in disagreement with. If not done with the constraint of time in mind, it may see health experts and patients in violation of previous precedents. I request that the order be relaxed or redacted for several reasons. First, the order conflicts with a citizen’s 14th amendment right which states that;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The healthcare professionals that are dedicated to this specific sector of women’s healthcare will find themselves out of a job. I resent the fact that this will be because abortion is termed as a ‘non-essential’ when the law itself has provision for it. It has serious and dire ramifications to women specifically because, after a given period, abortion becomes inaccessible. The implication here is that to deal with an unwanted pregnancy; women may begin to perform unsafe abortions at home. The domino effect here is clear, and this will cause more harm than good. The APA associates unwanted pregnancies with interpersonal violence. In essence, women who go-ahead to bear children they had not planned to keep may pose a danger to themselves or the child. Abortions are a social response to a lack of economic prowess. When and if a woman is unable or unwilling to provide, this is the result. If this right is denied them, the financial implication will be unmanageable. A woman’s mental health is usually adversely affected by an unwanted pregnancy. The lack of freedom to abort will only add to the mental health cases as appertains to women in the State. APA confirms that lack of choice leads to higher anxiety levels, cognitive defects in children from unwanted pregnancies and lowered life satisfaction for women among others.
Shifting gears to the law, which I have invoked on numerous accounts above, abortion is legal in the State of Texas. There are of course a number of controversial issues surrounding the whole matter but that does not invalidate the law. I understand that the order is merely a restriction but I worry that because of the uncertainty of the COVID-19 crisis, it may be used in the future to prohibit abortion. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision brought the right to procure an abortion to standing in the State. While the law is not in any contention, subsequent restrictions have made the air around abortion ‘antagonistic’. The current penalty for unlawful abortion appertaining to a viable fetus is 5 years to life imprisonment. That brings us to the other restriction that third-trimester abortions are only viable in case the mother’s life is endangered. The Doe v. Bolton was a precedent that was heard in the State of Georgia. The plaintiff sued the Attorney General of Georgia and later claimed that the motion was wrongfully filed. The case increased women’s liberties concerned with abortion and paved the way for subsequent cases. The law previously allowed abortion only in cases of rape, incest, deformity or fatality. The new case brought about issues of when is it lawful to terminate a pregnancy. Roe v. Wade later strengthened the restrictions on first-trimester abortion and its lawfulness. A licensed physician is the only person with the right to administer the procedure and attend to a third trimester patient in case of any complication. The allocation of this particular restriction is what Order GA 09 is currently denying. Women will be forced to take matters into their own hands risking their lives. Senate Bill 22 sees to it that anyone who is associated with abortion in any capacity cannot get any government aid. The rule came as a result of the Harris v. McRae proceeding which maintained that there shall be no allocation of medical funding of abortion.
A study shows that in 2019 at least 862,320 abortions were procured in the USA and 55,440 of those were in Texas. It means that a large percentage of Texan women actually access this provision of the law. In determining whether a service is essential or not, we need to look at the relevant statistics. Texas is guilty of using a number of statutory regulations that may be seen as a scheme to one day completely prohibit abortion. Following the announcement, I have received information from other planned parenthood centers that around 120 Texan women traveled to other states to procure abortions. The statistic is relevant because it was between the period of March 25 to date. In retrospect, the order may backfire in our faces. Desperate women will value their maternal health in lieu of their general health threatened by COVID-19. Delays related to abortion are quite life-threatening to expectant women. It would be horrific if the number of abortion-related deaths increased due to the lack of safe and lawful abortion. We also need to remember that Planned parenthood is not solely about abortion. It helps the average woman make informed reproductive health decisions. The current crisis needs to experience a plateau in terms of childcare and fertility rates. It means that the percentage of people making these informed decisions guided by our professionals may reduce making the issue more difficult to attend.
I recommend the reinstatement of nonsurgical abortion. It beats logic that a woman in need of two pills needs to go out of the State to seek such relief. COVID-19 takes precedence in such times, and combating it is in all our priorities. The government already set precautions to allow for social distancing, which we as Medics not only follow but enforce to date. It will be in the interest of those involved if we are accorded similar rights with everyone else. These rights are subject to the already imposed rules that a one-meter distance is observed and wearing of masks at all times. I believe that as long as these measures are followed to the letter, the virus will be contained. In this way, all affected parties can benefit while staying safe. Planned Parenthood is willing to come up with more stringent measures in terms of patient scheduling, which will mean minimal interaction between people. In some ways, this could help in the screening of the virus. Medics could assist in testing and advising those who come in and out to assist in flattening the curve.
In conclusion, the Texas Executive Order GA 09 is simply putting the constitutionality of abortion in peril. I, therefore, urge that we work together to uphold the right of a woman in its totality.