The Battle for Abortions

I'm going to sleep. Cheers, Mum. This was the final text message from Izabela, a 22-weeks pregnant woman, before entering a fatal septic shock. For days, she waited helplessly on the hospital bed. By her side, doctors stood still in fear of breaking the law and refused to lend a helping hand until the heart of her severely defected fetus would stop beating. On September 22nd, 2021, the wait was over when Izabela became the first known victim of Poland’s near-total ban on abortions. But as many feared, this only marked the beginning of a tragic trend of preventable maternal mortality slithering throughout the Polish border.

For nearly 30 years, there have always been three legal bases for abortions in Poland. However, on October 22nd, 2020, the course of Polish history forever shifted when the Constitutional Court eliminated the legal bases for 98% of abortions by ruling all terminations under severe fetal abnormalities unconstitutional. This brought back the abortion law imposed on the population between 1932-1943 when Germans occupied Poland during the Holocaust. When the law returned on January 2021, the subject to criminal penalties, including imprisonment, fall on the medical personnel carrying out the abortion. Henceforth, trends of hospitals across Poland stopped performing abortions. In other words, without straight-out banning abortions, this ruling made the overwhelming majority of them practically impossible.

However, whether it is the massive burden imposed by Polish orders or the horrifying cries of women seeking abortions, Physician carrying out the abortion are those with the final say in breaking or following the law. To quote the late American Civil Rights Legend, Martin Luther King Jr., “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” While the Hippocratic Oath, an oath of ethics historically sworn by western Physicians, extends that sentiment by stating, “Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death.” As the inherent value of life cannot be an a priori constant if a choice is to be made between two lives, it is unjust to implement a single rule controlling all Polish pregnancies under the bases of severe fetal abnormalities, and force the Physician to prioritize giving birth to the baby, when we possess the medical resources to save the mother. Under this unjust circumstance, by following the ethical doctrine of Civil Rights trailblazers, and the fundamental instinct of Ancient Greek medical texts, it is the moral obligation of Physicians to remedy the glaring systemic flaw by providing thousands of Izabelas with urgent medical services despite unethical political pressure, and sparing them from balancing the value of their lives on the Scale of Injustices that never learned in their favor. Since the dawn of civilization, generations have established that saving a life and breaking an unjust law is never a crime, it has always been a cause to fight for.

On the contrary, it is irresponsible to argue that one reserves the right to arbitrarily disregard legal and societal norms on the rationale that their instinct deems the law to be unjust. At this point in time, there are no official records of definition on an unjust law across societies and borders, simply as the law would no longer remain in effect if it is seemingly believed to be unjust. Hence, the freedom of interpretation, to classify whether a law is just or unjust, would be left in the hands of individuals, introducing a realm of prejudice as the ambiguous concept of an unjust law varies from one’s internal perspective to another. Considering the Polish abortion law as an example, if a young lady discovered that her unborn fetus carries severe fetal abnormalities, yet in fear of holding a distorted miniature hand in her palm but no one ends up holding hers, she may begin pondering upon the necessities of abortion. In such a scenario, the young lady may interpret the Polish abortion law to be an unjust law as she has no choice but to carry a disabled fetus to term, robbing her from a better future. In stark contrast, the disabled fetus may conceive the law to be a just law as they rely heavily on the Polish abortion law to fairly secure the fundamental right to life. If the law should be broken as one believes the law is unjust, the young lady reserves the right of civil disobedience, consuming an abortion pill, forbidden by law yet deemed unjust by the young lady, while the fetus endures the ultimate punishment. Similarly, this idea applies in wider contexts within the society as a whole, for one, an unjust law may relate to force and violence, for another, the very same definition may represent a beacon of hope, justice, and morality. Evidently, in lack of a standard definition to the word unjust law, the way in which individuals conceives injustices may drastically vary, while those entitled with the decision to the outcome of a dispute lavishes in the benefit of power over the situation, arguing their way out of criminal penalties on the basis of personal biases and individual situational awareness, above the holistic spectrum of justice for all. 

While discussing the ethicality of legal theories, Massimo La Torre, a UK Law School Professor, once described law as a concept that extends beyond a question of theory or a mere philosophical discussion without practical effects, rather it is a binding custom or practice of a society made possible through norms, values, and principals. In short, laws are adopted and followed in our everyday conduct. This complex system of societal norms fabricates the basis of trust and order in any society of mankind. For example, contracts allow corporations to enter into an agreement, knowing that the agreement is enforceable by law, and the other party may be sued for breach of contract if they fail to fulfill or honor their side of the contract. Such a concept of order, or the societal adaptation of laws, beginning since the dawn of civilizations has proven to have immediate repercussions on the overarching trajectory of a society, politically and systemically. Yet, by arbitrarily allowing the governed to defend how each attempt of breaking the law, unjust or otherwise, is justifiable beyond a reasonable doubt, the statistics on criminal offenses will show a drastic upward trend as we disrupt the functionality of the fair administration of justice. To put this into perspective, if we arrive at a world where individual freedom takes precedence over existing norms, where every action is resulted from how we choose to interpret justice in the context of law, that world is one where peace would be something longed-for. In moments when a decision is to be made, we will arbitrarily assert mental dominance over an event, we would override default societal norms and decide whether we choose to follow an unjust law versus how it is legitimately imposed by law. Such acts of civil disobedience jeopardizes the well-being of a society. As we rail against laws being an affront to our freedom, particularly unjust ones deemed by varied interpretations, we neglect the fact that they are the essence and fundamental building blocks of a harmonious society. Thus, it can be concluded that without rules - and some tendency for us to stick to the - society would slide rapidly into pandemonium. Hence, all laws founded upon legitimacy nonetheless require absolute efficacy.

With all this in mind, a generic question arises for all societies today: What can we, as people, do to remedy glaring systemic flaws and create conditions for justices to hold and flourish? What can we, as people, do to eliminate potential risks to a major societal upheaval posed by the negligence of justices upon fundamental rights? We don’t have to stand idly by and watch as our fellow civilians suffer from the terrifying cycle of inequality, discrimination, and prejudice across a spectrum of social classes, races, and genders. We can begin by opening discussions with government authorities surrounding hindered minorities and victims of legal injustices. In doing so, we can hold authorities accountable by pushing them to take into greater account how implementations of legal frameworks affect those governed, and properly adjust existing laws to accommodate greater needs. This feedback loop of societal participation incentivizes the incumbents to do more for their citizens, in doing so, social cohesions can provide an authentic lens through which to objectively reflect the rise of societal injustices in gray areas of the existing legal framework, and what further amendments may be passed to truly serve the citizens for which laws are created for. Through effective compromisation between citizens and incumbents working in conjunction to obtain a middle ground, and constructive advocacy in which citizens have a say in matters affecting their livelihood, we can cherish a safe environment for all Polish women, where I’m going to sleep. Cheers, Mum. is nothing more than an ordinary goodnight message.