State Rep. Ken Fleming (R – Louisville) introduced HB 711, which would add rape, incest, and fetal anomaly exceptions to Kentucky’s ban on abortion. Abortion exceptions are favored by a majority of voters according to various polls. But the vocal pro-life base of Fleming’s Republican party will find it difficult to accept compromise in a place where it sees an inviolable principle: human life begins at conception and should be protected by law.
If the polls are accurate, the Left is winning the issue, at least in the court of public opinion. According to a survey done last year by Emerson College Polling, upwards of 54% of Kentuckians are dissatisfied with our current lack of exceptions. The pro-life GOP is reeling in loss after loss when the question is put to the people. Most recently in Kentucky’s governor’s race, Governor Beshear turned the tables and redefined “abortion extremism” as failure to include exceptions for rape. “How could the law force a young woman to carry the child of a rapist?” That was the question Hadley Duvall publicly asked gubernatorial candidate Daniel Cameron in a compelling campaign ad that put a young face to sexual crime that resulted in pregnancy. It also helped the pro-abortion Governor Beshear win re-election, especially with the lopsided help of urban voters.
But are exceptions the path the GOP majority should take? And if so, is it the path that leads to a stronger and more just community?
Consider the multiple principles at play: bodily autonomy, communitarian values, and a human being’s right to live. Interestingly, the argument for bodily autonomy was employed by conservatives who opposed COVID vaccine mandates. The communitarian-based political left didn’t buy it. They saw protection of the larger community from a deadly virus to be a priority. Conservative State Rep. John Hodgson (R-Louisville) is appealing to the idea of bodily autonomy with his HB 45 which would prevent the forced microchipping of people for tracking purposes.
The pro-life community argues that bodily autonomy has limits. They see another human life apart from the mother at stake. They argue that the right to life of the unborn child, even at the embryonic stage, has a claim on the community to protect it. So in one case, the larger community should be protected from an unseen virus that can cause death. In another case, the larger community should welcome an unseen future member into its ranks. Perhaps this is the horizon where political right and left can see each other more clearly?
A situation where a woman like Hadley Duvall is abused and left pregnant is heart wrenching, and there’s no political solution to such suffering and personal trauma. Too many women—(even one story is enough)—have suffered a similar, horrendous fate. This is the story that has captured the social imaginary of the plurality of the electorate. And the political world is demanding a political response. But short of liberalizing Kentucky’s abortion laws to the point of being meaningless, can there be an adequate political response?
Vigorous opposition to abortion exceptions from the pro-life community doesn’t come from a heartless calculation but rather from a place of principle that integrates an individual’s right to live with the communitarian responsibility to welcome and protect that life. It’s a position more difficult to defend in an age of images, TikTok reels, and short attention spans, because this tiny life doesn’t yet have a face, a story to tell, or a compelling political ad to narrate.
Regardless of one’s ability to expand room in their thoughts for the rights of a person whose father is a rapist, and whether or not the general public can find a place for such a child to join the community, both sides of the debate are looking for a principle to make the right decision. That’s a question that the state legislature will address in coming days.