A few questions, please.
Has it come to this? “A law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion” is described as “strict” and a “highly restrictive abortion measure.”
In what way does it restrict a woman seeking an abortion? Is there now a constitutional right to have the humanity of an unborn child denied by an abortion profiteer who spouts nonsense about “a blob of tissue”? A constitutional right to be stupid as well as fat, happy and unpregnant?
Or is it the poor “physician” we’re concerned about? How great the indignity to be required to show a woman something that will demonstrate that what you’re offering to kill for hire is alive and human, and even has “heart, limbs and organs”!
A second law from the same state, Oklahoma, that “protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects” is likewise labeled a “highly restrictive abortion measure”?
So it’s a “restrictive abortion measure” to be prevented from suing a doctor on the theory that “if we’d known she was carrying a crip, we’d have killed it”?
I recall a man being put on trial for disclosing the address of a key witness for the prosecution of a career criminal; the witness was soon gunned down.
Have we gone so far down the road of indifference about abortion that it is outrageous to draw an analogy between (1) that aider and abettor of witness murder and (2) a physician who nonchalantly “discloses the address” of a disabled child in utero?
And what’s this about an “unborn baby” being a “fetus” with “birth defects”? How can you have a “birth defect” if you’re not born? What’s a birth defect anyway? God’s breach of warranty to deliver merchantable goods?
And what’s the distinction between an “unborn baby” and a “fetus” apart from propagandistic connotation?
Have words lost all their meaning? Does the New York Times have no shame for so blatantly editorializing in a supposed news story? There was zero balance in this story except the segué that “The Republican majorities in both houses, however, saw things differently.” (Oh, no! I’m having fond feelings toward the GOP again! Make it stop! This article is restricting my right to despise a party that so habitually lets me down!)
This is not a prediction that the laws will withstand challenge in our damnable present abortion regime. Though the court has shifted a bit, I’m not confident that they the ultrasound law will stand. The “wrongful life” oriented law seems to me pretty far beyond the reach of Roe v. Wade and its progeny spawn. (Caveat: I’m not as “on top of” abortion law now as when I was a card-carrying, anti-choice, extreme right General Counsel for Indiana Right to Life.)
But I do say that by any reasonable standard, these are moderate measures, not the least restrictive (because a woman still has the right to abort for any reason or none), and bona fide efforts of the Oklahoma legislature to:
- dissuade women from abortion by presenting them with uncomfortable but utterly factual information about the gravity of what they’re considering; and
- protect the consciences of doctors who don’t want to have to put an innocent unborn child on a hit list because of “birth defects.”
UPDATE: In contrast, the Wall Street Journal rolls it right down the middle of the lane.