From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch comes this article with some possible ramifications, if this proposal is successful.
The Freedom of Choice Act failed to get out of subcommittee in 2004, but its sponsor is poised to refile it now that former Senate co-sponsor Barack Obama occupies the Oval Office.
A spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the legislation "is among the congressman's priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later."
I don't spend much time on this topic, because it's generally a no-win debate. Just know and understand that I don't like abortion. But I fear making it illegal, once it's been legal, will deal us similar consequences as what happened with Prohibition. The best way to handle it is through the demand side, by teaching our children that abortion is wrong and adoption is always the better choice.
I don't believe in bombing clinics to make a point, not one iota. I find no justification in injuring and/or killing people to make a larger point. I don't much mind the protesting, if it's peaceful and doesn't result in open harassment. But you won't find me involved in one.
But as my quasi-ambivalence is now better known, I have to stress something. I am not happy about the state, once again, inserting it's nose into something, in which it has no right to do so. This is certainly true for religious issues and/or other issues of conscience. This is addressed in the Constitution and I believe can be proven to be unconstitutional, if taken to court. It will take a trip to the SCOTUS, but it will be upheld because nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to any kind of health care, much less the kind that ends up with a dead fetus.
Even though the article implies there aren't enough votes to get this thing enacted, I think it is time for some lawyers to get ready to do some work. If not on this issue, on others that are predicated on the American people losing more of their liberty, with every action this Congress and President seeks to implement.
Rather than throw in the towel and watch more abuses be attempted by a progressive authoritarian regime, it's time to let the Congress and President know something; if they assert the federal government's actions over people's personal consciences, they will be in for a long expensive trip through the courts. Then if that isn't enough to dissuade them from venturing into areas where they have no business, 2010 is around the corner.
As I said, I am not against a woman's right to choose. I am against people being forced to violate the dictates of their consciences. There are more than enough places for women to choose to abort their unwanted pregnancies. There are no studies to show that demand is not being met.
Let me tell the secular progressives, the atheists, and the feminists (who are ultimately responsible for this) something they do not realize. If you want religion to stay out of politics, you have to keep your politics out of religion. It's a two-way street. You cannot have it both ways and expect the same in return. This is the epitome of hypocrisy and a textbook example of utter arrogance, to even suggest such a thing.
The more this kind of proposed infringement is tried and promoted, maybe the people will wake up and see the trend for what it is. Slowly but surely, the government seeks to take more and more rights away from the people. And they do it through the most deceitful of means, they disguise it as assistance or a helping hand to people, who are not fortunate enough to see through their ruse.
Orwell saw it. I see it. My good friend Mustang sees it.
Do you see it?
10 comments:
to say nothing of the fact that we don't need Catholic hospitals closing right now but I wouldn't blame them. That's their CHOICE.
There seems to be no choice unless it's the choice of the Left these days...kind of like bipartisanship...only if everybody agrees with Obama.
"the right of a woman to her own body" is the euphemism for the right to kill an unborn child. Why do we prosecute Scott Peterson for TWO murders yet call abortion a 'choice'?
I agree with you; I don't like abortion, either, but it should be a private thing.
The government is far too intrusive into the lives of its citizens. Sometimes, there are unsatisfactory consequences to government behavior, and this could be one of those. It is what happens when government becomes a totalitarian regime, and the danger is that it could become a far more serious problem.
"Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people." -- Thomas Jefferson
The Federal government has no right in this situation and the SCOTUS should rule as such. Abortion is a states rights issue and by law should be handled by the states and not the Federal government.
I am against abortion and call it as it is, murder, for life begins at the moment of conception.
While many call it a private thing it goes beyond that when it comes to the consequences of abortion and the psychological issues which DO occur after abortion. As a psychologist I have seen these issues arise over and over. For those who can afford private counseling then one could say that yes, it is a private issue, but far too often the cost of dealing with the issues of abortion is carried over to be paid for by you, the taxpayer since the majority of abortions are performed on those unable to sustain financially, the long term treatment needed in dealing with the consequences. While not all issues arise immediately following the abortion these issues will arise later in life and have to be dealt with. The consequences are multiple and vary from divorce, abuse, neglect, inability to sustain relationships not only in a one on one situation but in the corporate or working world as well. Dealing with these and the many other issues which arise will cost numerous of other people other than the individual having the abortion both financially and emotionally.
The consequences of choice is a choice that the Federal government has no right to foist upon others and in making abortion(so called and labeled choice) the law of the land they are doing so.
Excellent comments all, but it leads me to consider another aspect of this. If this was to be successful, where would it end? Would the government be able to require other procedures to be done? Could hospitals be required to terminate the elderly who are taking too long to recover from an illness?
The list will become neverending if we allow this to proceed unchecked. Like I said, if a hospital wants to offer abortions, it's up to them. Nothing good can come from forcing all of them to provide them.
Welcome Ticker,
//While many call it a private thing it goes beyond that when it comes to the consequences of abortion and the psychological issues which DO occur after abortion. As a psychologist I have seen these issues arise over and over. For those who can afford private counseling then one could say that yes, it is a private issue, but far too often the cost of dealing with the issues of abortion is carried over to be paid for by you, the taxpayer since the majority of abortions are performed on those unable to sustain financially, the long term treatment needed in dealing with the consequences. While not all issues arise immediately following the abortion these issues will arise later in life and have to be dealt with. The consequences are multiple and vary from divorce, abuse, neglect, inability to sustain relationships not only in a one on one situation but in the corporate or working world as well. Dealing with these and the many other issues which arise will cost numerous of other people other than the individual having the abortion both financially and emotionally.//
If one hasn't read this by this gentleman, you may want to to look at it closer. This is another reason why I am personally against abortion. The repercussions are often felt for the rest of many women's lives, those that elected to terminate a pregancy.
I worked for a company once that had an office in the same building that also housed an abortion clinic. I cannot tell you how many times I saw a young girl being led out in tears, several were crying uncontrollably. And that was just the beginning of their trauma.
I well recall the days of Roe v. Wade -- and the run up thereto. I was in college at the time.
Back then, supporters of a woman's right to choose never suggested that every medical facility would have to perform abortions; rather, women's centers opened to perform abortions, and the rest of us went somewhere else for our GYN care. In fact, a relative of mind was seeking an abortion some 12 years ago; her gyn didn't perform abortions and told her about a nearby facility which did offer abortions.
But now I see this information at this post. Hospitals will be forced to perform abortions (or any other procedure) so that a woman can have the right to choose? It seems to me this a perversion of the original intention of Roe v. Wade.
LA,
You said, If this was to be successful, where would it end? Would the government be able to require other procedures to be done?
I think the answer to the second of those questions is yes. We, the patients, could lose control over the direction of our care. That way lies madness, IMO, possibly even eugenics and, as mentioned, euthanasia.
I think that we'll see cradle to grave in practice here in the United States within 50 years, if trends toward stronger government continue.
My daughter had an abortion. It would have been a "special" child. She is a special ed teacher and always vowed that in such circumstances, she would abort. Still it was very emotional and sad. I support her decision to do what she thinks is right. I do not want the Federal Gov't, states, or communities or organizations to decide what is right for her. Absolutely a private decision. Until each of you have served a couple of years as a special ed teacher, seen the budget to support that effort, please do not judge others. Pablo.
//I think that we'll see cradle to grave in practice here in the United States within 50 years, if trends toward stronger government continue.//
Maybe sooner.
Pablo,
This is why I usually avoid this topic. I only used it today, to demonstrate the state's willingness to insert itself into the moral consciences of individuals.
Every case stands on its own.
Post a Comment