Ross: SCOTUS’ decision on Roe becomes ineffectual by the day

The Supreme Court’s abortion decision already seems to be changing.

Last week at a congressional hearing, the head of Americans United For Life – an anti-abortion group – testified before Congress about the case of that ten-year-old girl from Ohio who was sexually assaulted, and became pregnant.

Because she was beyond six weeks, Ohio’s abortion law would have required her to give birth. And according to Politico, the top lawyer for the National Right to Life Committee (James Bopp) agreed the girl should have been forced to carry the pregnancy to term under Ohio law.

But instead, the girl was taken to Indiana and given pills that induced a medical abortion.

At first, there was some skepticism this actually happened, but with the arrest of a suspect in the assault, and with reporters able to verify the official abortion documents, there’s no longer any doubt this happened.

So, at last week’s hearing, Democratic California Rep Eric Swalwell was eager to put his right-to-life witness on the spot:

Seated before him was Catherine Foster, head of Americans United for Life. And hoping to show that she would actually force a ten-year-old to give birth, Swalwell asked her: “Would a ten-year-old choose to carry a baby?”

“If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape and it was threatening her life, then that’s not an abortion. So it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation,” Foster said.

Now, on paper, in Ohio, the only exceptions are for serious pre-existing conditions like diabetes or MS. Any risk to “mental health” doesn’t count.

But the right-to-life witness seemed to be saying that because this girl was only ten, and a rape victim, that alone would mean that ending her pregnancy could not be defined as an “abortion,” and therefore would be legal in any state.

That is a breakthrough. It means there is a right-to-life group that does support exceptions in cases like this.

Which means there should be bipartisan support in Congress to re-define “abortion” so the term does not apply to those cases.

And then, as more outrageous cases appear – which they will – it can be re-re-defined…

Until we end up with the compromise we had before. With one difference: Abortion would be illegal, but ending a pregnancy would not.

Listen to Seattle’s Morning News weekday mornings from 5 – 9 a.m. on KIRO Newsradio, 97.3 FM. Subscribe to the podcast here.

Follow @http://www.twitter.com/thedaveross