Why Born-Alive Infants Protection Act Should Be Repealed - Research Paper Example

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (2002) Should be Repealed Introduction In 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The essential point of the law defines that baby that has been born alive is to be considered as a person. With this definition, the baby is then provided absolute legal protection as mandated by the Constitution of the United States. Consequently, killing an infant that has been born-alive either by intention or by neglect may still be considered as murder. At first glance, the law may seem to address an issue that has already been resolved by moral and ethical conventions. However, because of its definitive character, the BIAPA also has a sweeping effect on U.S. Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade, which legalizes abortion. For the proponents of abortion rights, the BIAPA has reduced the legal bounds of abortion. For them and some medical practitioners, there are certain “situations involving human life (that) sometimes involve complex ethical challenges.” (Religious Tolerance) It is in this respect that the pro-choice camp as well as the advocates of reproductive health rights has raised anew calls for the repeal of the BIAPA. Arguments in Favor for the Repeal of BIAPA For many years, after the U.S. Supreme Court made a final and executory decision on Roe v. Wade, abortion has been considered legal in the country. The decision is not to be taken as a mere rule that declares abortion as legal. It must be understood in the context that it grants recognition for the rights of women to determine what is best for their reproductive health. It has enshrined such rights alongside the basic freedoms stated in the Constitution. The decision also strengthened the growing international movement for the women’s right to determine their own lives, free from the gender-biased secular and religious regulations. In this regard, Roe vs. Wade is one progressive legal step that makes the U.S. more advanced in terms of providing liberty and respecting the rights of its citizens, especially women, an example that the rest of the modern world can learn from and emulate. However, the BIAPA is not only an obstacle to the advancement of the rights on reproductive health and self-determination. It is actually step backwards to the era prior to Roe v. Wade. While the BIAPA was still a house bill called H.R. 4292, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) vehemently opposed it. According to them the bill attacks the very essence of Roe v. Wade. The definition of legal personhood as pointed out in the H.R. 4292, extends to premature infants who have survived abortions. They explain that when legal rights are given to infants born-alive at “any stage of development,” these are “directly in contradiction one of Roe’s basic tenets.” (NARAL Statement) Now that H.R. 4292 has been enacted as BIAPA, the legality of abortion can be questioned through the issue of definition. It is clear that the BIAPA is just another attempt of the anti-abortion camp to reduce the effect of Roe v. Wade through mere technicality. The intention of the BAIPA according to its proponents is to establish a clear law that would govern medical practitioners when confronted with the issue of having a born-alive infant whose viability of survival is nil due to serious health anomalies. However, doctors themselves have stated that a law on this matter is no longer necessary because medical practitioners have the habit of ensuring the survival of born-alive babies regardless of health conditions. Because of this, “the medical community most affected by the law discounted BAIPA as symbolic rather than a substantive law.” (Conway) It does not really have any enforcing effect on doctors and other medical practitioners as regards providing immediate care for the patients. The reason for this is that with or without the law, they are bound by professional ethics to guarantee the safety and health of a born-alive infant. Still, the proponents of BIAPA and anti-abortion advocates insist on the importance of the law in this respect. There were even pro-abortion individuals and organizations that approved of the BIAPA because it seemingly did not affect their stand on the issue. The anti-abortion camp considered this law as “necessary to protect infants who survive abortions…, (while) abortion rights advocates also voted for the legislation on the grounds that it would break no new legal grounds as regards either abortion or the treatment of newborns.” (Cohen) Indeed, the BIAPA did seem to be a piece of harmless legislation for it seemed to just enshrine one principle that has long been followed by medical practitioners. However, it is also by insisting on a definition that the law could become the basis of diluting the effectiveness of the Roe v. Wade decision. It is apparently part of the grand scheme of the anti-abortion advocates to gradually supersede the Supreme Court decision through legislative manipulations. At the back of these arguments in favor of the repeal of the BIAPA though is the basic philosophy that is more humane, scientific, and practical. This is the philosophy that provides the logical basis of the legality of abortion. Since BIAPA is a result of the anti-abortion advocates’ efforts to get rid of the Roe v. Wade ruling, it is necessary to review another essential point of the argument in favor of abortion. Anti-abortion advocates and BIAPA proponents have often labeled pro-abortion individuals and groups as baby-killers. However, it is clear that there is a huge difference between actually terminating the life of a baby whose chances of living is not viable and an individual who is healthy and fit. According to Peter Singer, “to pull out a sprouting acorn is not the same as cutting down a venerable oak” and that “to drop a live chicken into boiling water would be much worse than doing the same to an egg.” (153) Killing a baby whose ability to live is highly questionable certainly cannot be likened to the murder of a person who has all the possibilities of enjoying life. Arguments Opposed to the Repeal Position Since the promulgation of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court, various groups in the anti-abortion camp have been seeking tactics that would overturn through legislative means its essential points. Since the challenging the Supreme Court decision can be a more tedious process, they have resorted to lobbying in Congress, a more viable action considering that for the past decades, the legislative body has been dominated by conservatives in the Republican Party. The BIAPA is one of the most effective legal instruments that could turn back the tide started by the Roe v. Wade decision. This law “makes it clear that a woman’s right to an abortion does not guarantee the right to a dead baby” and that “a child who survives an abortion and manages to be born will be protected – even if his or her birth was not intended or desired.” (Connor) With such description of the BIAPA, it is only expected that arguments questioning the application of the Roe v. Wade decision have become reinforced through definitions that favor the ban of abortion instead. Nevertheless, according to the anti-abortion camp, they only want to make sure that any infant born-alive is given ample care by medical care providers. The BIAPA is a necessary law that would guarantee this. Some of the proponents of the BIAPA are themselves medical practitioners though. In fact, the concept of the law was developed due to observations made by a medical practitioner, Jill Stanek. Stanek made a testimony in the U.S. Congress about how the hospital she was working in handles babies who were subject to abortion but were, nevertheless, born alive. According to her, “in the event that a baby is aborted alive, he or she receives no medical assessments or care but is only given what (the) hospital calls ‘comfort care.’” (Testimony of Jill Stanek) However, even as Stanek pushed for the BIAPA, she also went ahead to state in the same testimony that abortion itself should be put to a stop. In this regard, the BIAPA is not just a simple measure that would guarantee the rights of infants who survive abortion. It is actually a means of reopening the debate on the justness of the Roe v. Wade decision and an attempt to introduce policies that would ultimately ban abortion. Because of this, the argument opposing the repeal of BIAPA is not anchored primarily on the issue of providing medical attention to born-alive infants but rather on the premise that abortion should not be allowed by law. However, its defenders insist that the BIAPA’s main objective is only to provide the guarantees that doctors would not consummate any botched abortion attempt. They may not be able to stop women from having an abortion or they may not be able to restrain women from practicing their right to choose what is best for them and their bodies. If a late-term abortion is not successful though and the baby is born alive, even if its chances of surviving are nil, they can, at least, ensure that baby is provided ample care. To understand better the position of the opposition to the BIAPA’s repeal though, it is imperative to find out the philosophical bases of their arguments. While the pro-abortion camp considers that the fetus is not yet a human person, the anti-abortion camp believes otherwise. Groups and individuals who believe that abortion should be discouraged, if not illegalized, argue that the “unborn child is alive from the moment of conception and has the right to life” and that such life is “a gift from God.” (Social Reasons For and Against Abortion) With such premise, it consequently arrives at a conclusion that “any embryo, fetus or newborn who is ‘born alive’ is a human person.” (Religious Tolerance.org) Because of this consideration, even an embryo or a fetus that does not have any chance of surviving despite the fact that it is born alive, is protected by the law. It is clear that such arguments are primarily based on the anti-abortion camp’s insistence on moral and religious beliefs. For the opponents of abortion, the first premise is that it is wrong to kill a human being. Their second premise is that a fetus even if yet unborn is already a human being, which, therefore, means that destroying a fetus is wrong. (Honderich 2) The moral justification of the first premise could only be attributed to religious laws. This can be obviously seen in the fact that there are certain secular laws that justify the killing of a human being, such as capital punishment. In this matter, there are pro-abortion individuals and groups that consider capital punishment and murder of human beings as immoral or unjust. They differ, however, when it comes to the definition of human life. For those who defend the BIAPA, fetuses are already humans and therefore should be accorded the same right to life as those adult persons who feel, think, and work. Summary and Conclusion It is clear that proponents for the repeal of the BIAPA and those who are defending it do not agree on the aspect of the law’s legality, medical practicability, and philosophy. Those in favor of the repeal see the BIAPA as puts in question the Roe vs. Wade decision. It does not offer any substantial legal impact on the practice of medical professionals but instead only puts them in more difficult ethical situations. The BIAPA is, in fact, a reflection of the philosophy that favors the ban of abortion and the protection of fetuses at the grave disadvantage of women’s reproductive rights. In considering the arguments raised by those who defend it, it is obvious that BIAPA appears to be just a legal mechanism that would render the Roe vs. Wade ruling weak and ineffective. The only basis on which the arguments in defending BIAPA can stand on is the supposed immorality of abortion from the point of view of religion. This is definitely a very subjective and unscientific ground to formulate an argument. Principles based on religion should not be the sole basis in determining the laws of a modern and free society such as the United States. In this respect, the BIAPA should be repealed. Works Cited Cohen, Susan A. “Congress in 2000: Actions to Date on Major Reproductive Health Issues.” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, December 2000, Vol. 3, No. 6. Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved 26 November, 2010. . Connor, Kenneth. “The Born Alive Act is a win for humanity.” Opinion. Post-Gazette.Com, 5 August, 2002. Retrieved November 25, 2010. . Conway, Craig A. “What will Become of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act?” Health and Law Perspectives, June 2009. Health Law & Policy Center. University of Houston Law Center. Retrieved 25 November, 2010. . Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005. NARAL Statement. “Roe v. Wade Faces Renewed Assault in House.” 20 July 20, 2000. Retrieved 25 November, 2010. . Religious Tolerance. "The Born-alive infants protection act." Legal Aspects of Abortion. Retrieved 25 November, 2010. . Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993. "Social Reasons For and Against Abortion." Religion For Schools. Retrieved 26 November, 2010.. “Testimony of Jill L. Stanek, RN.” Hearing on H.R. 4292, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2000. 20 July, 2000. Retrieved 25 November, 2010. . Read More