Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gonzales v Carhart, a press release by the ACLU and actions by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and others have presented a reason for this writer to reconsider a position of favoring what may be called a pro-choice stance on abortion.

More accurately, my personal view toward pro-choice was primarily governed by a reluctance to support the complete elimination of any choice a person can reasonably select especially when the public is largely divided on the topic. Allowing a woman to abort a pregnancy that resulted from rape, incest or one which threatened her own life did not seem to me to be unreasonable. And in general, choosing to abort shortly after conception, while not a choice to be advocated, may prove reasonable under some circumstance.

I never believed it was proper to perform an abortion on a whim or as a convenience or as contraception for dummies. And under no circumstance do I believe a partial birth, late term, 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion or whatever you choose to call it, is an acceptable abortion choice.

The Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on what may be characterized as late term abortions, as defined in the majority opinion of Gonzales v Carhart (click here to download pdf file), the reaction to the opinion by what appears to be most pro-choice advocates and a redundant legislative proposal supported by Senator Barbara Boxer and others has caused me to reexamine my position on this topic.

If the details of ‘ending fetal life’ as discussed in Gonzales v Carhart are not sufficient to convince every person as to the barbaric nature and unnecessary selection of this particular ‘medical’ procedure and that no one should be allowed to make this selection, the ability of our species to advance beyond our current condition is severely limited.

While many arguments could be presented to compare and contrast my conclusion in the preceding paragraph, how anyone can defend the use of the procedure described above is beyond my ability to understand. Therefore, I honestly submit that the ACLU, Senator Barbara Boxer and others are entirely and completely misguided in opposing the Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v Carhart. And even if it were put to a public vote as to whether or not Roe v Wade should be upheld or discarded solely based on late term abortions I would have to agree with it being discarded. And that comes from a largely pro-choice advocate.

Of the many other viewpoints and arguments available, I would like to add that there are many other issues within this topic that need to be addressed. A brief example would be that if men are to held liable for the care and well-being of any child for which they are the biological father, then allowing the woman to have complete control and rights over whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy is largely flawed. If two people are responsible for a pregnancy, then both should share the responsibilities and rights for the consequences of their actions. This of course addresses what might be described as a ‘normal’ pregnancy and not one caused by rape, incest or other situation that complicates the point. I know I just added to all the potential criticism with this last set of statements, but I trust that most readers will understand what has been expressed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The press release from the ACLU is presented below as well as references to proposed legislation intended to circumvent the Supreme Court decision.

ACLU Applauds Introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act (4/19/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its strong support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D - CA) and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D - NY). This legislation would preserve women’s health and reproductive rights by protecting their right to privacy and ability to make their own reproductive choices.

This new legislation is especially important in light of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on certain abortion procedures over the strong objections of the medical community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an organization representing 90 percent of the country’s OB-GYNs.

“This latest attack on women’s reproductive health shows once again the pressing need for legislation keeping personal medical decisions in the hands of doctors and their patients,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, we still believe that doctors, not politicians, are most qualified to determine the safest course of treatment for their patients. The Freedom of Choice Act will protect women’s relationships with their doctors from political intrusion.”

The Freedom of Choice Act would restore critical protections for women’s health, a core principle of Roe v. Wade that was undercut by yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. It would protect the right of women, in conjunction with their doctors, to make personal medical decisions and prohibit the government interfering in those decisions.

Said Fredrickson, “At a time when the core protections of Roe v. Wade are under attack, FOCA is essential to guarantee reproductive freedom in federal law for future generations of American women. The ACLU strongly supports this important legislation and urges Congress to lend the bill its support.”

2. [110th] H.R.1964 : To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (71)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

3. [110th] S.1173 : A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R.3719
Title: To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 1/21/2004) Cosponsors (87)
Related Bills: S.2020
Latest Major Action: 3/1/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

S.2020
Title: A bill to prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 1/22/2004) Cosponsors (17)
Related Bills: H.R.3719
Latest Major Action: 1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.ALL ACTIONS:

1/22/2004:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S186-187)
1/22/2004:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, , Pirate’s Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.