Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt And Her Anti-Abortion Bill: "Rape Is a Golden Opportunity"

 

“Rape is a difficult issue and it emotionally scars the individual, all or in part, for the rest of their life – just as child abuse does. But if a baby is created, it is a human life and whether that mother ends that pregnancy or not the scars will not go away, period.

“It is a shame that it happens, but there’s an opportunity for that woman – no matter how young or old she is – to make a determination about what she’s going to do to help that life be a productive human being. … That child can grow up and be something magnificent, a wonderful family person, cure cancer, etc. This is not about keeping abortion alive, this is about keeping the mother alive, and just because you have emotional scars doesn’t give you the right to take a life.”

– State Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) of Ohio

It's time to get down and dirty about the upcoming Supreme Court decision to abolish Roe v. Wade. When the inmates are in charge of running the Court and the state governments, it's time to call a halt to the craziness and rise up against tyrannical rule – measures aimed to take away women's freedom of choice. Call it what it is – a damned sell out for political gain and a return to oppressive, antiquated morality.

Rep. Schmidt introduced her anti-abortion measure in front of the Ohio House Government Oversight Committee on April 27, 2022. The bill, H.B. 598, is a trigger ban that would outlaw all abortions in the state if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that expanded access to abortion nationwide. Similar to other GOP anti-abortion measures flooding red states right now, Schmidt’s trigger ban does not include exceptions for rape or incest.

(Alanna Vagianos. “Pregnancy From Rape Is 'An Opportunity' For Women, Says Republican Trying To Ban Abortion.” Huffington Post. April 28, 2022.)

Please, reread proof of her insanity once more: the rape would be “an opportunity for that woman.” Who would pass a law that makes an abortion illegal in such a case? Schmidt should take “an opportunity” to resign her position after making such a careless judgment of perhaps the most sickening and life-changing criminal behavior.

Schmidt admits that rape is bad, but evidently she does not think it is bad enough to warrant an abortion. This is a former U.S. congresswoman who once infamously discussed abortion with a class of elementary school students. She argues that a pregnancy from rape is actually a chance for a woman to raise a child, send them to live with a family member, or put them up for adoption. That hypothetical child, she argued, could someday cure cancer.

Schmidt's bill does include exceptions in cases where the pregnant person’s life is at risk, but even the definition of what constitutes a deadly risk was vague and up for interpretation during the committee debate.

(Alanna Vagianos. “Pregnancy From Rape Is 'An Opportunity' For Women, Says Republican Trying To Ban Abortion.” Huffington Post. April 28, 2022.)

Exploring the Reasoning Schmidt Uses

Pro-lifer politicians like Jean Schmidt are trying to get their moral views enshrined in law. This is the twisted logic they use to justify their position on abortion and victims of rape. Dr. Bernard Mauser of Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College in Charlotte, North Carolina, explains …

“What about allowing abortion in cases of rape? I once had a student challenge me with this question and here was how our discussion proceeded:

“Student: What if my sister was raped- would you force her to have the baby?

“Me: Let me ask you a question.

“Student: Ok.

“Me: Suppose your dad raped someone today. Would we be justified in killing you?

“Student: No.

“Me: Why not?

“Student: Because it was my dad that raped someone. I didn’t do anything wrong.

“Me: This is great. You’ve recognized that because you’ve done nothing wrong you shouldn’t be punished for what your dad did. You should also see that the unborn baby is also innocent in the fictional case regarding your sister. Another thing you’ve ignored is that your sister already has the baby. The only question left now is what to do with the baby already inside her.

“So, from my conversation with my student we can glean a couple of things. First, we don’t think it is justice to punish a child for something their parent did. Abortion punishes a child for something their parent did. Therefore, abortion is unjust EVEN in the case of rape. Second, we can all recognize that the unborn child that is the result of a rape is still in her mother’s womb and can be protected. It is not a question as to whether the woman ‘has’ the baby. From conception a woman has a baby until it leaves the womb. The real question is whether we should protect the baby or not.”

(Bernard Mauser. “Does Rape Justify Abortion?” https://ses.edu/does-rape-justify-abortion/.)

First of all, Mauser makes the assumption that a viable life exists as a result of the rape. Secondly, he transfers – with a wacky inductive leap – the blame for a fictional father's rape to his living son. Mauser somehow expects us to see that innocent son the same as the sperm deposited during a violent, criminal act into the boy's sister. It doesn't make any sense. The blame and the responsibility for the abuse clearly rests with the man who committed the crime. If anyone is negligent of “protecting” a supposed “baby,” it is the rapist, certainly not his son or his victim.

Who in their right mind would believe a rape victim seeking abortion is guilty of being an accessory to murder? And, although right-to-life advocates argue that abortion after rape provides no genuine healing, that is a generalization based on the result of mental health problems suffered by at least some women. Overturning Roe v. Wade eliminates the choice to have an abortion for all women.

A rape is not a consensual act. Any result from the rape, to the woman, is, therefore, against her consent and is coercive. People should not be subject to actions that are against their consent, insofar as they abolish a person's right to autonomy.

A fetus that results from a rape, then, is not the product of the woman's consent, and acts as an intruder. The woman becomes an innocent victim who must deal with the aftermath of the coercive act. She has the right to her own body. Comparing her need for an abortion to murder simply results from a over-reactive moral judgment and an assummation that a desirable life is in the balance.

When you deny a victim of a violent, nonconsensual crime the right to choose – forcing her to accept all of the damage and the outcome of the attack – you effectively cancel the rights of that victim. Women must have the right to choose. The morality of some must not dictate the course of action for all. 

My View

Jean Schmidt aims to legislate women's rights to her own agenda. She says, "Just because you have emotional scars doesn’t give you the right to take a life.” She defines rape as “an opportunity for a woman.” Do you believe this? The frightening thought for me is that many people in Ohio evidently do because Schmidt has the apparent support of ultra-conservatives and soon the sanction of U.S. Supreme Court.

Schmidt intends to add legislation to increase the stigma associated with abortion, even in cases where the procedure is warranted. She should drop her bill and apologize to every victim of sexual assault for her reckless and callous remarks.

If Schmidt and people like her want to legislate morality, why don't they concentrate on

worthy objectives like saving the planet, ensuring LGBT protections, or addressing income inequality. In the case of abortion, restrictive laws will not keep women from seeking the procedure when they are face-to-face with difficult, life-changing decisions. Those same laws will not solidify their view of personhood.

And, in fact, one view that attributes personhood to a fetus implies that all forms of abortion, including embryonic deaths caused by contraceptives, are morally wrong. Are we going there, Jean?

The Fetus And Morality

Is a fetus a human being? What settles the question of the moral status of the fetus? Most arguments for abortion stand or fall on a different question, namely, “Is the fetus a human person?” Persons have the capacity for acquiring a sense of self and engaging intelligently with the external world – a view that personhood is equivalent to “rational self-awareness.” Potential for awareness is not the same. I believe it should not be morally treated as the same.

(Peter Singer. Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2011; Jeff McMahan. “Killing embryos for stem cell research.” Metaphilosophy 2007.)

The majority of people adopt a hybrid account of the personhood of a fetus: an embryo is considered a non-person, whereas a late-term fetus is sufficiently developed to be considered a person.

This is the belief that an entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, moral values, and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. – author of A New Unified Theory of Psychology, who directs the Combined Clinical and School Psychology Doctoral Program at James Madison University – argues …

“Consider, for example, if I scratch my arm, many thousands of living human cells will die. However, despite the fact that these cells were clearly 'human' in terms of their structure and makeup and were clearly alive (in terms of metabolism, growth, organic complexity, etc.), no one would suggest we need a funeral for each cell that perished. In other words, there is clearly much more to being a person than having human DNA and being alive in the technical biological sense of the term …

“… The point is that, in terms of its complexity and essence, at conception, a zygote is on the same dimension of complexity as the sperm and egg (i.e., they all exist, like the cells in my arm, at the biological dimension of complexity). The bottom line here is that just because something is alive and is human, it does not follow that the entity is a fully functioning human being.”

(Gregg Henriques. “When Does "It" Become a Person?” Psychology Today. August 09, 2015.)

To me, the bottom line of the argument is that the legal and moral status of a person's rights may start at conception, but that conception is not magically imparted into human personhood with the first sparks of DNA. And, a woman must not be forced to carry any nonconsensual matter to term.

What right does Jean Schmidt and her anti-abortion cronies have to usurp the rights of a victim of such a heinous act? We could draw up fictional scenarios of rape all day long and still reach the same conclusion – a woman's scars and pain are unique to herself. We must respect that conclusion and preserve her right to choose. And now it appears we must fight for women's rights as bat-shit crazy legislators and justices are determined to ban abortions … not caring about the true innocent victims.