Webster, Health, and History

Abstract

HISTORIANS PROVIDE a refreshing shake-up to the stultified debate over the moral interpretation of fetal status when they cooly point out that today's vision of the conflict is a recent phenomenon. Their work reveals that the current political turmoil around abortion is exactly that, saving us from misinterpreting it as springing from some immutable human dilemma. Because of the way the debate about abortion has been framed in the contemporary United States, it is eye-opening for the American public and judiciary to learn that current views about the fetus differ from those of the past. Clarification of the historical record regarding protective legislation and segregation of the workplace by gender has been a significant contribution in employment discrimination cases (Sears) and fetal protection policy cases (Cyanamid, Johnson Controls). The historical perspective offers tools and facts for correcting misconceptions. For example, the historians' brief in the Webster case reveals that the ardent position of the Catholic Church does not spring inevitably from doctrinal roots but has changed as recently as the nineteenth century. It shatters our stereotypes by illustrating that the contraceptive, abortion, and childbearing practices of different groups have varied considerably over different time periods in America. This information is critical in reformulating the issue. For those of us working in the area of medicine and public health, the changed position of organized medicine is of great interest. As described in the brief, physician opposition to abortion in the mid-nineteenth century stemmed largely from a desire to establish professional sovereignty and to stake out a moral high ground in order to distinguish themselves from the irregular healers. This attempt was made in the name of protection of women and was closely related to the technological limitations of the times.