Activist judge strikes down a law requiring ultrasound before abortion
As reported by Washington Post:
An Oklahoma judge decided Tuesday that doctors do not need to perform ultrasounds and offer women detailed information about the tests before performing abortions, striking down the strictest such law in the country.
Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki L. Robertson ruled that the 2008 law, which included other abortion-related provisions, violated a state constitutional provision that requires laws to address only one subject.
Thirteen states regulate the provision of ultrasounds by abortion providers, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health think tank. The provisions have been pushed by abortion opponents as a means of deterring women from having the procedures.
Not knowing the Oklahoma constitution, I'll defer to the judge regarding this "single subject" rule. But, at least the way it's presented in the article, it doesn't sound like the judge is, as is her obligation, simply applying the law as it must be applied, regardless of whether it passes the common sense test or the public weal. She sounds gleeful that she found this technicality which allows her to strike down a law that she disagrees with.
Assuming that constitutional technicality issue is valid, I'm not sure if I should be wishing that this decision gets overturned. But I do hope that the lawmakers re-introduce the bill to conform to the rules, because it sounds like a really good idea: let the mother see her child before she decides to kill him/her; the only pressure is that the mother sees her unborn child, not whether she should kill it or not, and the question is between her, her doctor, and God, no one else (unfortunately the baby can't speak yet).
And yet, the anti-life groups pretend that this is somehow privacy issue:
A Tulsa clinic run by Nova Health Systems, represented by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, filed a lawsuit charging that the law not only violated the state Constitution's "single-subject" rule but also infringed on a woman's right to privacy, violated her dignity and endangered her health.
...
Arizona and Florida require ultrasounds for abortions after the first trimester; Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama mandate ultrasounds for first-trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute says that because an ultrasound is not considered medically necessary in the first trimester, when nearly 90 percent of abortions occur, it views such laws as "a veiled attempt to personify the fetus and dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion."
Er, "personify the fetus"? You cannot personify, outside literature, something that isn't already a person. That's why animal rights movement, which does try to personify a non-sentient being, hasn't gained traction with the general population. Most reasonable people know a person when they see one, and they also know when they are being fed B.S. about lower beings.
If a fetus is truly a non-person, no amount of ultrasound images or doctors' explanations would force a mother to think of that fetus as a person, the way no amount of sophistry can convince an adult that a baby doll is a person, even though it can "speak" and make various noises.
Most of the time, when unnecessary abortions of convenience are performed, the fact is that the mother is in denial. She is in denial that she has been entrusted with the life of a sentient being and, so far as she is able, bears the duty to protect that life. If more information, provided by modern instruments and the doctor's commentary, can help her see past her denial, what's wrong with that?
On the other hand, the law does not require that she see past her denial. The only thing it does, at least the way it seems to me, is that it makes it abundantly clear to God that her decision to terminate her baby was not born of ignorance and haste—and that her act was a willful act of destruction. But then, these anti-life groups don't believe in God anyway, so what are they really afraid of?
Why all regulation is necessarily evil—even if it’s a necessary evil
Because once you accept that the government (especially the feds, which should have very limited power) has power to regulate on all sorts of things, you get rulings like this: (on HotAir.com)
Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the “morning after” contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block 2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the pills.
It doesn't even have to be about religious convictions. Although it sure would make his case weaker, the pharmacist could be opposed to this regulation because he's a misogynist who hates all the slutty women who needs Plan B pills.
He has a fundamental right to his own property, i.e. the pharmacy, and as long as his use of that property does not harm others, he has a fundamental right to do as he pleases, for any reason or no reason at all. And, no, not stocking "life-saving medicine" doesn't qualify as harming others—by that logic, every one of us who is not a pharmacist or doctor is guilty of murder by not learning life-saving skills and practicing medicine.
Once you accept that the feds (or even the states) have such regulatory power that pervades through every detail of our lives, even infringing on our fundamental rights, well, nothing is sacred nor protected, and to stop that from happening, we have to first acknowledge that all regulation is evil. It's just that some are necessary or simply impossible to get rid of, so we tolerate them despite their utter evilness (like alcohol or tobacco).
Video: Lila Rose exposes yet another PP clinic breaking the law
The Mona Lisa Project continues with its sixth in a series of undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood deliberately breaks state laws on reporting child abuse and statutory rape. This time, Lila Rose went to Memphis, where state law requires health-care providers to notify the state when they discover a sexual relationship between an adult and a minor 14 years of age or younger. Does Planned Parenthood call the cops, or teach Lila to lie about it so she can get her abortion?
Why is the federal government funding an abortion program in the first place? This money comes from a lot (probably a majority) of taxpayers who are strongly opposed to these murder clinics.
Yes, abortion isn't legally murder yet, but the government shouldn't be spending money on things that a significant portion of her people are opposed to—especially when there is no benefit to the society in funding such an amoral activity.
Let those who love to kill unborn babies pay for procedures themselves. Don't make those who are opposed pay.
Libertarians for Life Homepage
One popular misconception is that libertarianism as a political principle supports choice on abortion. And major elements within the libertarian movement (the Libertarian Party, for example) take abortion-choice stands. Nonetheless, libertarianism's basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else--for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. That is a clearly pro-life principle. Recognizing that, and seeing the abortion-choice drift within the libertarian movement, Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong under justice, not a right.
And to think Gov. Palin was character-assassinated by the liberal media for her pro-life stance!
It makes one almost wish that we could make this one exception on our stance on "de-personing" somebody.
BTW, regardless of what you may have been told by the deceptive liberal media, even the staunchest pro-lifers would choose mother's life over the child's. What they frown upon is the abortions of convenience and choice—not abortions of medical necessity.
On second thought, I am not sure exactly how a libertarian state would advance pro-life agenda:
i.e. Beyond stopping subsidy of abortions (which is really insidious, since it's essentially making all pro-lifers actually pay for abortion by way of taxation), what can a libertarian state do to ensure as little abortions as possible?
A libertarian state wouldn't be in the business of issuing doctors licenses to practice, since an association of doctors should handle that sort of thing, and a libertarian state shouldn't try to meddle with that association (unless it becomes such an odious thing as unions for white collar workers).
When it comes down to it, one couldn't really do much better than Gov. Palin has done so far: she is pro-life in her personal belief and personal life (and she's open about it), but as far as legislations and government actions go, she hasn't tried to force anyone.