Airport Screeners to Perform Pregnancy Tests
April 27, 2007
There’s an interesting letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal today from Jackie Merrill of Pitkin County, Colorado. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s upholding of the ban on a rare procedure called Intact Dialation and Extraction, also known in the propaganda game as “Partial Birth Abortion”, the Journal advocated that SCOTUS overturn Roe v Wade. The effects, they noted, would be mild. Conservative South Dakota, for example, had overturned a restrictive abortion law. Most states would likely enact their own their own liberal abortion laws.
Anyway, Merrill had some interesting data that gave me pause for thought:
As for your advocating that the high court repeal the Roe and Stenberg decisions as well and send the debate back to the states, with your prognosis that liberal abortion laws would be enacted, the facts are instructive. Only 10 states have constitutional protections for reproductive choice; 30 states have pre-Roe bans, or more recent bans on the books. These may or may not be repealed or amended. Only 25 states have the referendum option that South Dakota has, and used to override one of the most restrictive laws in the country last November. Some states already have drafted very restrictive bills or outright bans that are waiting in the wings.
If SCOTUS turns it back to the states, states like Utah and Idaho, perhaps Montana, would ban abortion outright, while California and Massachusetts and some others would be a destination of choice for unwanted pregnancies. Apparently, at the outset at least, there will be ten states where women would be able to travel to get abortions. Thirty states would initially have bans on the books already. (Perhaps Montana is one of those?) Ten would be up for grabs.
Women with a little money could travel and get it done. Pro-choice groups could do fund raising to finance trips to safe states. The debate would then shift to pro-lifers trying to ban pregnant women from traveling. Airport screeners would be doing pregnancy tests. The Border Patrol would be working state lines. Residency requirements would be the next court test.
The dialation procedure is a serious operation, gruesome major surgery usually undertaken when there are fetal abnormalities, never done lightly. It is instructive that conservatives think lawyers a better guide on this matter than doctors. Big Brother lives. There seems to be no end to the means to which pro-lifers will go the impose their will on others.
And that is all it is in the end – the overriding desire of a minority to control the behavior of their fellow citizens.
April 28, 2007 at 7:46 am
Such flawed reasoning and alarmism. How typically liberal.
First, I get a kick out of all these terms and phrases you guys like to come up with to soften the issue. Reproductive choice? Everyone knows you have a choice: keep your pants on or you might end up pregnant. Once you are pregnant, it’s no longer a matter of “reproductive choice.”
Second, from Roe v. Wade being repealed to airport pregnancy tests? That’s a pretty big leap to a ridiculous conclusion.
See, this is the biggest problem with liberals: there’s no reason or rational thought to support their positions on issues; it’s just a lot of angry, emotionally reactionary and misguided rebellion. I’m no anti-abortion Nazi, but so far I still have yet to hear a rational, compelling argument from a liberal on why abortion should be allowed without regulation, as if it were a matter of women’s rights. If you can mount such an argument, I’m all ears.
April 28, 2007 at 9:03 am
Oh please … spare me theatrics. I simply took literary license to make a point – learn to recognize it.
We are dealing here with people who are convinced that their end justifies their means. They will stop at nothing. Individual liberty is a side issue – it is a small matter when you are saving lives!!! These people have it in their minds that fetuses are legal and sentient human beings – “babies” is the word they use. No amount of reasoning will stop them. They are dangerous.
So I took literary license and imagined airport screeners and border patrols. Given that we are dealing with people among whose ranks are people who have murdered doctors to advance their cause, is it such a stretch?
April 28, 2007 at 9:08 am
Ok, you’re equating the Supreme Court with anti-abortion fanatics? Which of the justices was it that killed the abortion doctor? Talk about theatrics…
So, you’re also suggesting that fetuses are not human, right? So what exactly are they, then?
Still waiting for that reasonable argument…
April 28, 2007 at 9:27 am
I am equating anti-abortion fanatics with anti-abortion fanatics. Is every anti-abortionist a fanatic? Did I say that? Do you typically argue in this manner?
The concept of “person” is a legal construct – anti-abortionists are generally religious and rely on the bible as their sword. But the Bible is silent on the matter, so, even from a religious standpoint, it is left to us humans to decide when life begins. That is the critical point here – this is a legal debate – not a religious one. Religious views and personal morals, while interesting, are irrelevant.
If we can come to agreement on when life begins, the debate is over. Since we can’t, we are each left to follow our conscience. Pro-lifers, by all means, should not have abortions. But leave the rest of us alone. It’s none of your business.
April 30, 2007 at 10:07 am
I have yet to hear a rational, compelling argument about why women should be forced to become mothers when they do not want to. I’m assuming that both parties in Ryan’s scenario make the decision to “take their pants off”. However, in both physical and economic terms, the burdens of parenthood fall primarily on women – that is why abortion is an equal protection issue. And it will be until women are able to have children without being penalized in our economy. (or, at least, until men are penalized equally, at which point abortion clinics would be popping up like payday loan stores on every street corner)
April 30, 2007 at 1:42 pm
“So, you’re also suggesting that fetuses are not human, right? So what exactly are they, then?”
Fetuses. (Or Feti, if you prefer)
Thank you. This has been another episode of simple answers to silly questions.
May 1, 2007 at 8:53 am
While most of you are lamenting the ban, I’m getting excited. While our surrounding states follow SD’s lead in banning abortions, MT will remain a sanctuary state for sissor induced termanations. Here in Billings Planned Parenthood will require at least a new wing, if not a new building, located conveniently off our Shilo exit, in the industrial park.
Now, if we could only get a federally funded embryonic research center next door.
May 4, 2007 at 11:47 pm
[...] part of my ongoing conversation with a particular liberal blogger, I’d like to address the common argument from the [...]
May 10, 2007 at 6:41 pm
[...] 10th, 2007 I mentioned below, tongue-in-cheek, that the pro-lifers might want to ban pregnant women from traveling, fearing they [...]