Gonzales v Carhart and Examining Pro-choice
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.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
how anyone can defend the use of the procedure described above is beyond my ability to understand.
MINE TOO! …worse yet, you should see the late term abortion that is STILL legal…
Great post as always!
-Kathy
April 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I had abandoned keeping up with this issue. Having concluded that it would never be solved, it seemed pointless to study if there was little chance of finding a solution on which most could agree. But after being brought back into it by the Supreme Court case and hearing people opposing the decision as against women’s rights and casually dismissing the rest of the discussion by omission, a major flaw in the entire pro-choice position was exposed.
I still maintain that, not only in terms of the issue of abortion, but all issues, always allowing or always denying a particular choice or option cancels consideration and thought. We then act or do not act without considering the consequences.
How so many people can rise in outraged protest against violence and death for all sorts of reasons, yet so few seem to rise up against this violence and death. 3000+ deaths of Americans in Iraq is often described as unacceptable. Yet 5000+ of the deaths described in this case do not get even close to the same attention by the public. A criteria for decision- making that arrives at that answer needs to be scurinized.
Thanks for stopping by Kathy.
Oh, one more thing, I commented at BSC that the recent ‘bombshell’ to hit the Haditha Marines prosecution was a story that stunned me more than I had been stunned in a very long time. I did not expect that to happen again so soon, the stunned part that is.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“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 i would submit that you are far too kind to the ACLU. Boxer and their ilk. “Depraved” is the kindest characterization I can place upon their stance.
As to abortion for rape or incest… is the resultant foetus a guilty party? Sure, it may be traumatic for a woman to bear a child resulting from such evil acts, but surely less “traumatic” than the death that child suffers as a result of a “choice” made to terminate its life–a choice in which the child has no say, no choice–just as the child had no choice in its manner of conception and so is the only completely innocent party involved. Surely justice quails at the condemnation of the innocent for the acts of the guilty?
The abortion holocaust is primarily the result of greed, self-indulgence and sloth that are the natural outgrowth of our ever more “infantilized” extended adolescence culture. Me, me, me and my, my, my feelings.
*feh* “Buck up. Grow up. Be an adult,” I keep wanting to say every time I see yet another manifestation of this sicker and sicker “freedom without responsibility” culture.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
David:
I wonder if you are surprised that the abortion issue was raised here again. Other than what I have already posted, I will take this opportunity to express my reaction to your previous statement that you are pro-choice and ask, could it be your choice is for people to choose not to opt for abortion?
April 30th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Oh, one more thing, I commented at BSC that the recent ‘bombshell’ to hit the Haditha Marines prosecution was a story that stunned me more than I had been stunned in a very long time. I did not expect that to happen again so soon, the stunned part that is.
I keep up on the facts of this case as you know,,, and it snuck up on me too (the MSM writing the story part anyway, I know the facts of the case so something like this was bound to happen.)
… Little birdie tells me more to come.. stay tuned..
Have a great day!
-Kathy