012
United States
The Economist July 9th 2022
not implant and become pregnancies). Increasingly, antiabortion legislation is adopting the language of fetal personhood. Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, the case that ended Roe, did not do so. But the Supreme Court’s momentous ruling, on June 24th, criticised the view that “the Constitution requires the states to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed”. Laura Portuondo, a fellow in re productive rights and justice at Yale Law School, says this is likely to encourage the emergence of state laws banning abortion explicitly in the name of fetal personhood. Eff orts to ban abortions on personhood grounds are “ethically clearer”, argues John Seago, the president of Texas Right to Life, an antiabortion organisation. Mr Seago was infl uential in the push to pass a strin gent abortion ban in Texas last year. “They are more honest about the ethical princi ple that underlines the belief that abor tions are wrong,” he adds. Emphasising fe tal personhood is a natural next step, he says, in working towards a national ban. Like many others in this camp, Mr Seago is “not content” for abortion to be decided on a statebystate basis. Before Roe was overturned dozens of states introduced bills that banned abor tion by establishing fetal personhood, ac cording to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro choice thinktank. Because Roe rejected the idea and protected abortion until a fe tus was viable, such laws were blocked. Since its overruling, at least two states have sought to reinvigorate them. It is unclear if such laws will be allowed to stand. In Arizona the American Civil Lib erties Union and the Centre for Reproduc tive Rights, two advocacy groups, are suing state offi cials over an abortion ban that would give “an unborn child at every stage of development all rights, privileges and immunities…” on the basis that the law’s “vagueness” violates the right to due pro cess and puts providers and women at risk of prosecution. Congress is not likely to pass an abor tion ban based on fetal personhood any time soon. Elizabeth Sepper, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, says it would lead to impossible questions over matters from the census (should it count fetuses?) to imprisoning pregnant women (can the state not imprison pregnant wom en since it would mean locking up the fe tus as well?). Most Americans would not, she says, “struggle between saving a one monthold infant and a container with dozens of embryos”. Yet such beliefs need not be explicitly written into law to have an impact. Abor tionrights activists note that emphasising the legal rights of a fetus means compro mising those of the woman who is carrying
it. Believing that fetuses have rights has al ready led to cruel extremes, such as abor tion bans with no exceptions for pregnan cies that arise from rape. The idea also aff ects how women are treated in pregnancy. Dana Sussman, dep uty executive director of the National Ad vocates for Pregnant Women, which pro vides legal assistance for those who have had abortions, says her organisation has recorded lots of examples of forced inter
ventions that prioritise the fetus over the wellbeing and autonomy of the mother, from bed rest to caesarean sections. Hospi tals have reported pregnant women to the police for testing positive for drugs while pregnant. Some doctors are unsure about whether they may insert iuds as emergen cy contraception (in some cases the de vices prevent the implantation of a fertil ised egg). Without Roe such distressing scenarios will become more common. n
Command and control
Allow and unleash
America aims to harness its entrepreneurial, democratic spirit for a military edge
T
he war in Ukraine is hastening Ameri ca’s own military rethink. The fi ghting holds lessons, from the vulnerability of tanks to the value of defensive weapons. Those pondering a future war between America and China draw a further conclu sion: the advantage that “mission com mand” can give a military force, even one as outgunned as Ukraine’s. A “decentralised, powerdown, do whateverittakestowin approach” to command and control is one reason the Ukrainians have pushed the Russians back from Kyiv, notes Doug Crissman, who was recently in charge of the Mission Com mand Centre of Excellence at Fort Leaven worth, Kansas, where much military doc trine is developed. In contrast, the Russian army’s rigid, topdown command system from the Soviet era has left it fl atfooted, able to advance only through destructive artillery fi re. Around a dozen Russian gen erals, taking charge of matters on the front line, have been killed there.
American planners are grappling with the new age of greatpower contest, in which confl ict with Russia or China is like ly to mean American troops’ being out numbered and fi ghting far from home. Ri vals are already shrinking the technologi cal gap that America has long enjoyed; in some areas, such as hypersonic missiles, Russia and China already outpace it. So America is doubling down on its cherished concept of “mission command”. This involves the commander setting out objectives and then delegating much deci sionmaking to lowerlevel offi cers. West ern soldiers, many argue, are better able to take the initiative than troops trained un der an authoritarian system. The idea, says Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecre tary of defence for policy, is to harness this cultural strength of democracies more ful ly. As long as soldiers abide by the com mander’s intent, they fi ght more eff ective ly when given “licence and encourage ment” to deviate from plans.
23
