A few weeks ago, the Missouri House passed the Abortion Restriction Act of 2008, which would, inter alia, make it a crime for a partner, spouse, or parent to coerce a pregnant women into having an abortion. A doctor who performed the abortion, absent a signed consent form that this was the mother’s voluntary action, would be prosecuted under the law, as would the person who coerced the woman to abort. In addition, it would require a pregnant woman to be given medically accurate information about the development of the foetus and allow her the opportunity to view an ultrasound and hear the foetal heartbeat. (Full text of the bill may be found here.)
Be you pro-life or pro-choice, this bill should be a great thing. It gives women more information about the decision; ensures that they are making the decision themselves, and not under duress; and gives them information about child support and available resources. If you are about making life better for women, this should be your bill.
Inexplicably, feminists pro-choice abortion advocates hate the bill and worked hard to defeat its passage through the Senate. Selections from reactions are here, here, here, and here. A few choice tidbits as to why this legislation could ever be bad:
“They don’t have the guts to do what they really want to do, and that’s to make a criminal out of the woman who’s sitting in the doctor’s office,” said Rep. Jake Zimmerman, D-Olivette.
HB1831 and SB1058 violate a woman’s right to weigh her own life circumstances and make a decision that is best for her and her family; in Missouri, politicians would now step in and make those decisions.
A business would be guilty of coercion simply for threatening to reduce a pregnant employees pay and/or cut that employee’s benefits. Oh but wait, it gets better! A business would also be guilty of coercion for threatening to terminate the employment of a pregnant employee.
Amazing. Simply amazing. For those wondering, here is the offending text:
An employer cannot institute an occupational qualification that an employee or applicant seek or obtain an abortion.
How much do modern progressives hate women? These are the same people who destroyed the career of a distinguished jurist over the issue of pregnancy in the workplace and throw hissy fits because employers may not hire women who are likely to become pregnant or want paid maternity leave. Yet, somehow, it is now the vindication of women’s highest right to live in a world in which an employer may threaten to terminate her employment unless she aborts, her partner may threaten to withhold child support if she has a baby, and her physician can deny her access to medically accurate information about the procedure. Sick.
How screwed-up of an individual do you have to be to fight legislation that prevents employers from harming pregnant women, simply because - heaven forbid! - it might result in a baby being born?
Sphere: Related Content
It is hard to believe they can masquerade their “pro-women” views with a straight face. It is just like with PBA - they love abortion so much that they can’t stand even a hint of anything that would reduce them.
Neil’s last blog post..California Schemin’
The same “feminists” likely hate Phyllis Schlafly and her opposition to the ERA. Their true colors show through when they choose furthering the abortion cause over the protection of women.
Sam Pierce’s last blog post..“Big Brother” Barry On Rationing And Michelle’s Big Mouth
It’s the same loss of perspective that has some gun advocates opposing trigger guards and waiting periods in the name of “personal safety”…the certainty that the other side is so dishonest that they would bring in a bit of “no duh” legislation as a stalking horse to get a slippery sloap argument going and/or claim a victory to rally the troops and/or gain lost momentum.
Or it could be that there is actually some other tiny little rider in the bill that the legislator actually objects to, but the interested groups are framing it this way to build false outrage.
Like when all the religious-types were up-in-arms about that teacher that was supposedly fired for having a Bible in his desk, andit turns out that it’s actually because he was prostelitizing in class and was accused of burning the shape of the cross into a student’s arm.
It just got reported in a scewed way and people passed it on, ’cause, who would lie about something like that, and it was reported the same way in lots of places and seemed to check out?
Teresa’s last blog post..Hate or not hate?
Teresa,
I will strenuously disagree with you. Those quotes are from pro-choice advocates and pro-choice blogs. I’m not making them up or repeating pro-lifers. Those are the justifications that they use to oppose this bill.
If you don’t believe me, click on the links. Until then, I don’t want to hear pretzel logic - because there is little reason for me to impute rationale to people who do not espouse it themselves.
By the way, gun advocates SHOULD oppose trigger guards. Also, guns, unlike abortions, are actually protected by the Constitution (and not by some screwed-up interpretation thereof devised for the sole purpose of making social policy). Trigger guards - how does that work when someone’s in your house? How does that work if they fail - like fingerprint recognition? How does it meet Constitutional muster?
Sam & Neil,
I concur. I can see how feminists may want to ensure that women don’t die in back-alley abortions, but this is nuts.
While there is no right to commmit a crime safely, and it is not the job of the government to ensure that we can commit crimes without harming ourselves, there is some need, IMHO, to ensure that women aren’t forced into back-alley abortions. I would say, first and foremost, that such includes financial support for pregnancy, prenatal care, labour and delivery, and child support from the father. While I’m very libertarian, I do understand that pregnant women have a burden to sustain a life that benefits someone else, at her expense, and cannot be outsourced. To some extent, I do think that our society ought to share some of the burden of pregnancy, to whatever extent practicable. That would include, though, getting the father to pay up, ensuring that pregnant women can retain their employment, ensuring that women aren’t coerced into abortions, and providing resources for those too poor to help themselves. Oddly, those are pretty much the exact provisions of this bill at issue.
One can only conclude that feminists want women to have back-alley abortions…? Or, to be less snide, that they want women to have no other options BUT abortion, so that they can say, “Women need abortion!” and keep it legal.
Roxanne,
Your last comment is thought provoking. I tend to agree with some of it and disagree with other parts to varying degrees. I am not yet (I don’t know that I ever will be) about some of the issues you raise.
I think the financial support should come from the father first and I believe his refusal to help should be criminally punishable. I believe the bulk of any assistance should be through charity and not government. As part of this, I believe the government should butt-out of many things, including charity regulation. As for the inevitable argument that anti-abortion people don’t care, I offer examples such as Arms Of Love in Alton, IL. My family donated regularly to this organization that provided for pregnant women and women with young children. When we left the area, they were opening a facility in a building that was formerly a nursing home, that would provide a place to stay until they could get on their feet.
I do believe that government assistance is acceptable as a last resort and should be greatly restricted in comparison to its current availability. Public Aid should not buy alcohol and cigarettes for the mother or her boyfriend. It should be temporary.
As for the “burden to sustain life that benefits someone else,” except in the case of rape, the “burden” was a product of a choice. Again, the father should be legally bound to as equal a share of the burden as possible. (No, I am not minimizing what only a woman can do, which is why I say as equal as possible.)
As far as retaining employment, I can see no way that could work without an unjust government intrusion on the employer. The employer, unless he is the father, played no role in the act of becoming pregnant. I believe that it should be left to the employer to decide to retain the employee, as I believe they should if they can afford to and not hurt their business.
You have certainly given me cause to examine my position.
Sam Pierce’s last blog post..“Big Brother” Barry On Rationing And Michelle’s Big Mouth
Roxeanne,
Of course you strenuously disagree…no problem there…
That’s the whole reason I’m interested in talking to you.
I hope to have a spare moment to check out the links you rprovided more thuroughly after I am done replaceing the faucet in my kitchen sink…which will probably take all day. My dishwasher broke down at the same time as the kitchen sink faucet. Can’t let those dishes pile up so…everything else is on hold as soon as the hardware store opens…
grumble.
Teresa’s last blog post..Hate or not hate?
Teresa,
If you read any of them, read the Coathanger blog one. It’s the one from which I took the final quote (regarding making abortion a condition of employment). I’m sickened that someone who would call herself anything BUT anti-choice and pro-abortion would say that such a requirement is a bad thing.
Roxeanne,
I read the link you particularly recommended, and the objections I saw described went along the lines of there being not enough definition of what constitutes “coersion” in the bill. In other words, a doctor is put in the position of having to read the woman’s mind and is responsible for dicerning wether she is being coersed or not.
An employer who puts a woman in a lower-pay bracket because she can no longer perform her job due to pregnancy could be seen as “coercing” an abortion…despite it being the regular course of business (presuming maintaining her full duties is impossible or unhealthy for the mother)…and having nothing to do at all with the employer coercing her to have an abortion.
A man frankly discussion his emotional reactions to an unplanned pregnancy could be interpreted as coercing her to end the pregnancy.
Wether these interpretations are valid or not (haven’t had a chance to look at the wording of the bill), those are the actual objections raised in the article. The person in no wise expresses a desire to see women coerced into having an abortion.
Teresa’s last blog post..Wrong. But funny in a wrong sort of way.
Teresa,
I should have made it more clear - the actual text that is in question is what I quoted: “An employer cannot institute an occupational qualification that an employee or applicant seek or obtain an abortion.”
Judges on the right aren’t going to read language more broadly than written (and this is written rather narrowly); those on the left aren’t going to want to read too much into this particular statute, so I think it’s a non-issue. To me, preventing an employer from saying, “You have to abort if you want to continue to work here,” is pretty basic.
The “coercion” requirement doesn’t apply to employers, presumably, because they are covered by a more specific section.
I see. I’m still going to have to read more about this. It’s going to be a while before I can do so, though. I am currently putting the works into motion for an all night birthday pizza party for a housefull of 11-year-olds…
…complete with a late-afternoon super-soaker battle, X-box 360 gaming, movies and ghost stories around a bonfire.
Teresa’s last blog post..“Sit down, shut up, and take off that scarf…welcome to the home of the free.”