The anti-abortion laws in many red states make few exceptions. This morning, NPR interviewed the Arkansas AG, who supports extreme restrictions. Under the Arkansas law, all abortion is illegal unless it is to save the mother’s life in a medical emergency. No exception for the mother’s health. No exception to remove a non-viable fetus before it becomes a medical emergency. No exception for deformed fetuses that cannot survive after birth. No, you have to wait until the mother is near death. That is the current Rethuglican position.
The evangelicals who back those laws adopted that position relatively recently. The Southern Baptist Convention backed Roe in 1973; at that time abortion was only an issue for the (dreaded) Catholics. They changed their view in 1979 for political reasons, based on a desire for racial segregation. That story has been told elsewhere though. There is no scriptural basis for hard-line anti-abortion positions.
Jewish law holds that a fetus becomes a child at birth. Until then it is part of the mother. Orthodox law does not permit abortion “on demand”, but it requires abortion when the mother’s life is in danger, and most view the mother’s health, mental or physical, as a good reason for abortion. Also, a deformed fetus should be aborted so as to not cause it to be born to suffer. An unjustified abortion is not murder, but it is against halacha to maim the body, and the fetus is an organ deserving of good medical care. This JTA article gives the Orthodox viewpoints. Of course Orthodoxy does lead to extremes and it cites one rabbi’s extreme views, which are closer to the evangelicals’, but he’s in the minority. A more common view from that article:
Jewish law does not consider the fetus to be a being with a soul until it is born. It does not have personhood. Furthermore, before 40 days, some poskim, or deciders of Jewish law, have a low bar for allowing an abortion.
The Talmud, in Yevamos 69b, cites the view of Rav Hisda that “until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.”
If there is a threat to a woman’s life, the safety of the mother takes precedence over continuing the pregnancy at any stage. Many sources illustrate this graphically and rather unambiguously, and all modern poskim, or religious decisors, agree on this. In fact, in certain circumstances, a fetus that endangers the life of the mother is legally considered a “murderer” in active pursuit.
Thus Jewish law (halacha) requires an abortion when the mother is at risk, and not only once it becomes an emergency. If the mother’s health is compromised, or for example if she needs cancer treatment, then abortion is called for. Under Texas-type laws, though, a rabbi who merely encourages someone to follow halacha could be found liable for abetting an abortion, and a doctor who performs it in many states would be a criminal.
An interesting example was shown in the Israeli TV series Shtisel, a 3-season series about a haredi (ultra-Orthodox) family in Jerusalem. One of the daughters got married and wanted children, but had a serious problem (I think related to blood pressure) that made pregnancy a risk to her life. The rabbis essentially ordered her get an abortion, and she defied them by risking her life to have the much-wanted baby. That was fiction but it made the point — she was supposed to get the abortion to prevent a life-threatening medical emergency.
There are a number of medical cases where abortion is also reasonable to anyone who is not into human sacrifice. Ectopic (tubal) pregnancy can be fatal, yet a recent Missouri bill introduced by Branson’s state rep explicitly made removing an ectopic pregnancy a felony. A number of genetic conditions are incompatible with life too, especially some trisomies (three, not two, chromosomes in one or another of the 23 positions; Down’s is one of the less-serious ones). And sometimes selective abortion of one twin is required to allow the viable twin to survive to birth. So-called pro-lifers would have both die, and maybe the mother too.
Given this court’s deference to “religious freedom”, we may have to make the case that our religion is in conflict with state abortion laws and must (here’s a funny verb) trump them! I wonder how that will go over with the Alito supporters.