“The Women's Health and Safety Act of 2013 navigated
the Alabama Legislature last year, garnering the governor's signature in April
2013, but [U.S. District Judge Myron] Thompson quickly took issue with a
provision requiring that doctors at abortion clinics have admitting privileges
at local hospitals.
The state had argued the measure is designed to
protect the health of a patient. The plaintiffs called it medically unnecessary
due to the safety of abortion procedures and said the law would force three of
the state's five clinics to shut down…
Revisiting the issue in the court's Monday ruling,
Thompson said, "The court was struck by a parallel in some respects
between the right of women to decide to terminate a pregnancy and the right of
the individual to keep and bear firearms, including handguns, in her home for
the purposes of self-defense."
Both [abortion and gun] rights are controversial,
and there are opponents of each who, based on moral or ethical convictions,
feel they should not be rights and deserve no constitutional protection. Each
protected right is also held by the individual, but neither right can be
realized "without the assistance of someone else," he wrote.
The right to bear arms means little if there is no
one from whom to procure guns and ammunition, Thompson wrote. Likewise, the
right to abortions is meaningless if there are no medical professionals to
perform them…
‘So long as the Supreme Court continues to recognize
a constitutional right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any regulation that
would, in effect, restrict the exercise of that right to only Huntsville and
Tuscaloosa should be subject to the same skepticism,’ he said.”
(CNN, Federal judge: Abortion like right to bear
arms By Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN, August 5, 2014What if Alabama passed a law
that shut down all but two of the state's guns-and-ammo stores?)
This is a comparison that catches my attention. How do we support a person’s right and decide
what, if any, limitations to set upon that right? How would a libertarian answer this
question? Would they suggest no
limitations? How practical is it to have
a right without limitations? We have the
right to drive a car, once we have completed a series of tests that verify we
are able to drive a car safely. And
while I strongly believe that there needs to be some commonly held safety
guidelines for a woman receiving an abortion, at what point do the safety
regulations become an impediment to a woman’s right to choose whether to have a
child?
I understand that some people do not believe in
abortion on religious grounds. But the courts have already decided that a
woman has the right to choose whether to have a child. As many of you know, I am also passionate
about gun control. What if I said that
my religious beliefs gave me the right to try to restrict people from having
access to places where they could buy guns?
But the constitution and the courts have already decided a person has a
right to bear arms. So, then, how would
my efforts to restrict access to guns be any different than what some people
are doing to restrict access to places where safe abortions can take place?
What is that thing Jesus said, "how can you say
to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log
is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and
then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” Am I a hypocrite for wanting to preserve a
woman’ right to choose while taking a stand against gun access?
How do we decide these heated issues in ways that don’t
restrict a right into meaningless words, but instead offers reasonable
regulation? Unfortunately I do not
believe that the people who are passing these anti-abortion laws are thinking
about the safety of the woman—I believe they are thinking “how can we
manipulate the system so our beliefs are made into law.” And that, my friends, begins to blur some
pretty important boundaries separating church and state.
It is curious that no one in this country has
thought to turn gun control into a religious issue. Perhaps the commandment “thou shalt not kill”
(frequently used to support anti-abortion arguments) could be used as an
argument to begin regulating access to guns, giving law enforcement access to
lists of gun owners, or legislating mandatory educational programs to teach
people how to use guns safely. Just a
thought.
Is it not a matter of regulation and the degree of regulation established? Third trimester abortions are rare in face and done for medically indicated reasons. Whether it is guns, alcohol, cars, or abortion, reasonable regulation should be expected. Since States can set their own standards, regulation will be uneven. Maybe the right to equality in marriage is as example: today Idaho followed the Supreme Court decision not to consider the five Appellate districts decisions: Idaho followed suit which applies to Nevada as well.
ReplyDelete