Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T00:56:59.637Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When is an Abortion Not an Abortion?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Kimberly Mutcherson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In her article, “Selective Reduction: ‘A Soft Cover for Hard Choices’ or Another Name for Abortion?,” Radhika Rao explores the dense thicket of contradictions and conflicts related to abortion and selective reduction. Selective reduction is one name for a procedure performed to terminate one or more fetuses in a multi-fetal pregnancy in order to increase the chances that the other fetuses and the pregnant woman will emerge from the pregnancy healthy. Though Rao, in keeping with some authorities, uses the terminology selective reduction in her piece, others prefer the term multi- fetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) as more reflective of the procedure’s goals and practice. Competing monikers for the same procedure speaks to the importance of naming when discussing the termination of fetal life. It is also a sign of the array of legal, ethical, and medical conundrums surrounding practices that end or alter the course of a pregnancy.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Summer 2015 , pp. 206 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Price, J. H., “Another ‘Choice’ Raises Questions of Ethics, Morality-‘MFPR’ Sparks Debate,” Washington Times, February 10, 1998.Google Scholar
One author wrote, “But does anyone who knows what “selective reduction” is – namely, a fatal injection of potassium chloride or digoxin into the heart of a baby in the 10th to 12th week of life – actually believe it's not an abortion?” Jansen, J., “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy,” August 12, 2011, available at <http://prolifeaction.org/hotline/2011/selectivereduction/#more-17252> (last visited April 22, 2015); Pawder, R., “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy,” New York Times, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?_r=4> (last visited July 1, 2015); see also, Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, available at <http://www.cincinnatirighttolife.org/life-issues/research/selective-reduction/> (last visited April 22, 2015). (last visited April 22, 2015); Pawder, R., “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy,” New York Times, available at (last visited July 1, 2015); see also, Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, available at (last visited April 22, 2015).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=One+author+wrote,+“But+does+anyone+who+knows+what+“selective+reduction”+is+–+namely,+a+fatal+injection+of+potassium+chloride+or+digoxin+into+the+heart+of+a+baby+in+the+10th+to+12th+week+of+life+–+actually+believe+it's+not+an+abortion?”+Jansen,+J.,+“The+Two-Minus-One+Pregnancy,”+August+12,+2011,+available+at++(last+visited+April+22,+2015);+Pawder,+R.,+“The+Two-Minus-One+Pregnancy,”+New+York+Times,+available+at++(last+visited+July+1,+2015);+see+also,+Right+to+Life+of+Greater+Cincinnati,+available+at++(last+visited+April+22,+2015).>Google Scholar
According to the Catholic church, “Beyond every confusion and ambiguity, we must therefore affirm that ‘fetal reduction’ is the same as selective abortion.” Pontifical Council for the Family, “On Fetal Reduction in Cases of Multiple Pregnancies,” available at <CatholicCulture.org> (last visited April 22, 2015).+(last+visited+April+22,+2015).>Google Scholar
Guttmacher Institute, Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States, July 2014.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Carbone, J. Cahn, N., “The Triple System for Regulating Women's Reproduction,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 2 (2015): 275–288 (describing the varying social consequences of pregnancy for women).Google Scholar
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction” (Committee Opinion), February 2013.Google Scholar
See Guttmacher Institute, supra note 4.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Of women who report their reasons for abortion, three-fourths cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals, say they cannot afford a child and/or that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Id.Google Scholar
Rao, R., “Selective Reduction: A ‘Soft Cover for Hard Choices’?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 2 (2015): 196–205.Google Scholar
MFPR as used by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in its most recent committee opinion is distinguished from selective reduction, with the former referring to termination procedures in which the physician terminates fetuses based on technical information, such as location in the womb, and the latter referring to terminations based on characteristics such as sex or disability status. See ACOG, supra note 7. Another author refers to embryo reduction, which is conflated with selective termination. Papageorghiou, A. T., “Ethical Considerations in Embryo-Reduction,” Current Obstetrics & Gynaecology 16, no. 3 (2006): 181–184, at 182.Google Scholar
Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., 573 U.S. (12 in slip opinion) (2014).Google Scholar
Luker, K., Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood (California: University of California Press, 1984): At 7.Google Scholar
Center for Reproductive Rights, The State of the States: Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers in 2013, available at <http://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/CRRStateofStates2013_all.pdf> (last visited July 1, 2015).+(last+visited+July+1,+2015).>Google Scholar