.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

I expect the “Pain Capable Child Protection Ordinance” to pass November 19th. Not because the majority of Albuquerque’s voters agree with the particulars of the ordinance, but because few have read it.

If voters were to read the ordinance they would find that it goes beyond limiting who can have an abortion and when. It redefines abortion as most understand it and even redefines who is considered a woman. And what it offers a woman who meets the stringent criterion of a life-threatening pregnancy is not an abortion, but forced child bearing. Further, this ordinance expresses concern for possible pain to a fetus, but none at all for certain pain to a child.

The ordinance defines a fertilized egg as an unborn child. Which would logically mean that birth control methods that prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting in the wall of the uterus, such as an IUD, are abortifacients. In vitro fertilization with its many discarded embryos, has by this definition abortion as a by-product. But the ordinance isn’t concerned with IUDs or IVF, which are both used by those opposed to abortion. Its focus is only on women “known to be pregnant.”

According to the ordinance a female, however young, is defined as a woman. This makes a pregnant 14-year-old a woman. And if that 14-year-old was raped by her father, has been denying her pregnancy for months and is now suicidal, that is not to be considered. All that matters is her physical condition. Exceptions are allowed only if continuing the pregnancy will likely result in her death, not including by her own hand.