2 minute read
Army entrepreneurism
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 reproductive 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.
Advertisement
Efforts 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 influential in the push to pass a stringent abortion ban in Texas last year. “They are more honest about the ethical principle that underlines the belief that abortions are wrong,” he adds. Emphasising fetal 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 abortion by establishing fetal personhood, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a prochoice thinktank. Because Roe rejected the idea and protected abortion until a fetus 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 Liberties Union and the Centre for Reproductive Rights, two advocacy groups, are suing state officials 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 process and puts providers and women at risk of prosecution.
Congress is not likely to pass an abortion 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 women since it would mean locking up the fetus as well?). Most Americans would not, she says, “struggle between saving a onemonthold infant and a container with dozens of embryos”.
Yet such beliefs need not be explicitly written into law to have an impact. Abortionrights activists note that emphasising the legal rights of a fetus means compromising those of the woman who is carrying it. Believing that fetuses have rights has already led to cruel extremes, such as abortion bans with no exceptions for pregnancies that arise from rape.
The idea also affects how women are treated in pregnancy. Dana Sussman, deputy executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, which provides legal assistance for those who have had abortions, says her organisation has recorded lots of examples of forced interventions that prioritise the fetus over the wellbeing and autonomy of the mother, from bed rest to caesarean sections. Hospitals 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 emergency contraception (in some cases the devices prevent the implantation of a fertilised 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
The war in Ukraine is hastening America’s own military rethink. The fighting American planners are grappling with the new age of greatpower contest, in 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 conclusion: the advantage that “mission command” can give a military force, even one as outgunned as Ukraine’s.
A “decentralised, powerdown, dowhateverittakestowin 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 Command Centre of Excellence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where much military doctrine is developed. In contrast, the Russian army’s rigid, topdown command system from the Soviet era has left it flatfooted, able to advance only through destructive artillery fire. Around a dozen Russian generals, taking charge of matters on the front line, have been killed there. which conflict with Russia or China is likely to mean American troops’ being outnumbered and fighting far from home. Rivals are already shrinking the technological 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 decisionmaking to lowerlevel officers. Western soldiers, many argue, are better able to take the initiative than troops trained under an authoritarian system. The idea, says Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defence for policy, is to harness this cultural strength of democracies more fully. As long as soldiers abide by the commander’s intent, they fight more effectively when given “licence and encouragement” to deviate from plans.
