Still reeling from the Boston bombing, still unsure of the outcome of the gun control bill, still unsure of Syria and how/if we should aid the rebels (and which rebels to aid), I’m still unsure about, well, many things.
One thing I’m not unsure about: Abortion rights.
Recently, 4 states have advanced restrictive abortion laws. They are North Dakota, Arkansas, Alabama, and Kansas. These laws are flatly against Supreme Court precedent and in the case of North Dakota are explicitly meant to be so, in order to get a chance to re-litigate Roe vs Wade.
Arkansas’ law is contradictory to Roe v. Wade by limiting abortions to 12 weeks (as opposed to the 22-24 stated in Roe v Wade), or, once a “fetal heartbeat” can be detected without a trans-vaginal probe. A fetus has a heartbeat much earlier than that (often around 6 weeks, or before a woman even knows she’s pregnant) but after all the forcible-rape-by-the-government bruhaha, these law makers sought to create an arbitrary barrier to a woman’s right to control her body by slightly different means.
Then there’s the Alabama bill which includes building code changes that have nothing to do with the services rendered at any women’s health clinic providing abortions, but will cost egregious sums of money in renovations to conform to. These changes do nothing, NOTHING, to benefit women’s health, and are only advocated as the most cynical, perverse, and devious way to advance an agenda without confronting the issue head on. It’s cowardly, deviant, and sick. It’s the reason the word “politician” is an insult.
We then have Kansas. Where a law set to pass will prevent “employees of abortion clinics from providing sex education in schools, bans tax credits for abortion services and requires clinics to give details to women about fetal development and abortion health risks. It also bans abortions based solely on the gender of the fetus” like that’s a thing in the U.S. Among the “Abortion Health Risks”? Breast Cancer. As Cancer.org states:
- Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
- Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
So, Kansas’ claims are bullshit. These laws are not intended to be protective of woman’s health at all. It’s clearly a scare tactic and nothing more.
Lastly we have North Dakota which has advanced a personhood bill, and while it will be legally struck down, it’s important to keep it in mind while looking at the latest law they’ve advanced, because it highlights the common theme among all these laws: repeal-in-any-way-at-any-cost. Now, to the latest law, which restricts abortions based upon the disputed idea that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, 2-4 earlier than the Supreme Court ruled a baby is viable. Interesting side note: whatever is claimed about a fetus in these laws, all these laws assume that the babies trump every over possible concern. Which neatly segues into my next point.
Body Rights. My favorite post on this subject is entitled “Bluey the Body Rights Thingamabob.” The jist is that no one can overturn their right to their own body. No being, be they fetus or adult human, can take our right to our body away from us. It is the single most definitive right any human being can have. Without a right to control ones own body, society is nil. All the typical objections are addressed in the linked article (and the following comments) in a way that makes me mad that I didn’t write it myself. However, there is a word used that I’d like to reiterate: Inalienable. “Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” I’d like to add in another word: Equivocation: To use language in a way as to deceive. For instance, saying a fetus should be given all the rights of an individual is akin to confusing an acorn for a tree, or, conflating a sentient human with a perception of past and future, for a fetus. This idea is rudimentary, perhaps that’s why it’s so violently denied.
Sadly, all this rational counter-argument is preamble (and useless), as there is one simple, founding and fully-underlying motivation to all these laws: Religion.
Interestingly enough, no where in the bible does it say that life begins at a heartbeat, or the perception of pain. There are many verses dealing with birth and conception, and they typically lean towards life beginning at birth. However, a current consensus among many Christians is that life begins at conception (badly argued as it may be). I chalk it up to religion being man made, and still run by men. They’ll change it as they will, regardless of what was written.
Still, we’re stuck with our fellow primates, so what are we to make of these laws? Are they simply religiously motivated attempts to exert temporal power? Or are th… nope I think we hit the nail on the head on the first try. These laws are nothing, NOTHING, more than attempts by the religious to make an end run around our separation of church and state, enshrined in our First Amendment, known best as the Establishment Clause.
So, when we notice that a “heartbeat bill”, a “fetal pain bill” and a “building code bill” have nothing to do with women’s health, and are all linked by nothing more than a religious worldview, we can call them out for what they are: Theocracy. As Alabama Governor Robert Bentley said: “We need to remember we are dealing with human life and this is what God expects us to do.”
Well, the defense rests.