Out of touch: Anti-rights leader suggests child support as solution to abortion for rape, medical necessity
How totally out of touch can a person be?
This post is free thanks to the amazing support of rePro-Truth’s paid subscribers. Please show your appreciation by subscribing today.
Abortion is available until viability in North Dakota, because the State’s April 2023 abortion ban was blocked by a court in September of that year. Recently, North Dakota Republican Rep. Eric Murphy introduced a new bill to ban abortion, House Bill 1488. The bill would ban abortions at any stage of pregnancy, with two exceptions.
Medically-necessary abortions would be permitted.
Abortions in cases of rape would be permitted, but only up to 6 weeks LMP (~2 weeks following a missed period).
Among other things, HB 1488 would require each hospital to create an “abortion approval committee” that would be in charge of determining whether an abortion is “medically-necessary” and either approve or deny a doctor's request to terminate a pregnancy. Such committees were prevalent in the years before Roe v. Wade and have reappeared following the Dobbs decision.
[Note: While there is much to say about HB 1488 — like how dehumanizing it is for a committee of people you've never met weighing whether you will get to keep your uterus or even your life, as though you are merely a fetal container instead of a person — critiquing the bill is not the purpose or subject of this post.]
Opponents of healthcare rights, however, are opposing the bill, claiming it “pushes the state away from its pro-life stance.”1
“There are pieces of it that say you can’t tell mothers they have a right to opt out, that the father can help them with payments, and a whole lot of other things,” said North Dakota Family Alliance Executive Director Mark Jorritsma (emphasis added).2 Setting aside the fact that HB 1488 contains no such prohibitions, remember now that the bill contains just two exceptions: rape (up to 6 wks) and medical necessity. What Mark Jorritsma is suggesting is that rape survivors and people experiencing dire medical complications during pregnancy should be told, “Hey, you don't have to have an abortion because you're entitled to child support. Isn't that great news!”
How totally out of touch can a person be?
Rape survivors need control over their own bodies and over what happens to their bodies returned to them - not to hear their rapists refered to as “fathers.”
People experiencing complications during pregnancy need medical treatment and to have the full spectrum of healthcare options available to them - not to be told that the father can help out with the cost of a kid.
Telling people in these situations that the “father” might help out with some bills, as if that has anything whatsoever to do with why these pregnant people desire or need an abortion is total gaslighting. Mark Jorritsma, and those who would offer the same such “solutions” to abortions for rape and medical necessity, are dangerously lacking in awareness and empathy, and their priorities are seriously out of whack. He and others should butt out of other people's healthcare decisions.
Swift, K. (2025, February 6). Proposed bill would create an abortion approval committee. KX NEWS. https://www.kxnet.com/news/top-stories/proposed-bill-would-create-an-abortion-approval-committee/
Swift, K. (2025, February 6). Proposed bill would create an abortion approval committee. KX NEWS. https://www.kxnet.com/news/top-stories/proposed-bill-would-create-an-abortion-approval-committee/