*An Opinion column by Jeff Emanuel, UGACR PR Director*
The foundation of a free society is composed of two things: freedom of information and freedom of choice. However, one cannot be effectively exercised without the other, as without a full complement of information, educated, informed, and knowledgeable decisions cannot be made.
All of free life is made up of choices. The choice whether or not to have an abortion can be one of the most difficult of these that a woman may ever face—and as such, it is a decision which should be made with the greatest amount of information possible. Two bills currently in the Georgia state Senate deal directly with abortion, information, and choice.
Senate Bill (SB) 429, the “Ultrasound Act," which so “horrifies” pro-abortion activists, provides the opportunity—no more and no less—to make a more informed decision. The bill requires that, “As a part of the informed consent to the abortion procedure, a pregnant female desiring an abortion shall be offered an opportunity to view the ultrasound or sonogram image of her unborn child.” Maybe I am missing something, but where is the coercion there? Under this law, the woman has no obligation to do anything differently than she does now—she just has the opportunity to obtain more information for use in making her choice.
The complaint that SB 429 will make “this decision harder for the thousands of women who already struggle” with it is an amazing self-indictment of the pro-abort left. When contemplating the taking of human life (and we can all agree that a fetus will become a person in time, even if we do not agree on exactly when that takes place), how can there possibly be a rational argument against making that decision as difficult as possible? It seems to me a gross contradiction that liberals will fight endlessly against the execution of murderers, yet will fight just as hard for the abortion of what will become innocent humans—and in doing so will fight against the opportunity to obtain more information which would help a distressed mother make that crucial decision.
The other bill is SB 123, or the "Pharmacists Protection Act," which protects the right of Georgia's pharmacists to refuse "to fill a prescription for an emergency contraceptive drug which purpose is to induce and effect an abortion," without facing repercussions at work. In order to fall under this bill, the pharmacist must have submitted, in writing, their moral or religious objection to abortion.
There is an obvious downside for the left if this bill passes, but it doesn't seem to warrant the level of outrage that it has engendered. There will always be plenty of pharmacists who are perfectly willing to distribute RU-486 and its modern medical derivatives; a woman desiring this can simply request to speak to another pharmacist at the window, or she can get back in her car and drive down the block to another pharmacy. If there are no other pharmacies in the area which do sell the drug, then there is an opening in the market that another pharmacist can move in and fill. That is part of the greatness of America's free-market economy: the freedom to sell, or not to sell, almost anything—and the freedom of the customer to take their business elsewhere.
The contradiction in the left's message on these issues is striking, and it is leading them to a vital crossroads in thought and policy. The pro-“choice” movement needs to decide very soon if it is actually for choice—including the choice to see a sonogram, and the choice whether or not to distribute a morally questionable drug—or if it is merely for abortion.
The foundation of a free society is composed of two things: freedom of information and freedom of choice. However, one cannot be effectively exercised without the other, as without a full complement of information, educated, informed, and knowledgeable decisions cannot be made.
All of free life is made up of choices. The choice whether or not to have an abortion can be one of the most difficult of these that a woman may ever face—and as such, it is a decision which should be made with the greatest amount of information possible. Two bills currently in the Georgia state Senate deal directly with abortion, information, and choice.
Senate Bill (SB) 429, the “Ultrasound Act," which so “horrifies” pro-abortion activists, provides the opportunity—no more and no less—to make a more informed decision. The bill requires that, “As a part of the informed consent to the abortion procedure, a pregnant female desiring an abortion shall be offered an opportunity to view the ultrasound or sonogram image of her unborn child.” Maybe I am missing something, but where is the coercion there? Under this law, the woman has no obligation to do anything differently than she does now—she just has the opportunity to obtain more information for use in making her choice.
The complaint that SB 429 will make “this decision harder for the thousands of women who already struggle” with it is an amazing self-indictment of the pro-abort left. When contemplating the taking of human life (and we can all agree that a fetus will become a person in time, even if we do not agree on exactly when that takes place), how can there possibly be a rational argument against making that decision as difficult as possible? It seems to me a gross contradiction that liberals will fight endlessly against the execution of murderers, yet will fight just as hard for the abortion of what will become innocent humans—and in doing so will fight against the opportunity to obtain more information which would help a distressed mother make that crucial decision.
The other bill is SB 123, or the "Pharmacists Protection Act," which protects the right of Georgia's pharmacists to refuse "to fill a prescription for an emergency contraceptive drug which purpose is to induce and effect an abortion," without facing repercussions at work. In order to fall under this bill, the pharmacist must have submitted, in writing, their moral or religious objection to abortion.
There is an obvious downside for the left if this bill passes, but it doesn't seem to warrant the level of outrage that it has engendered. There will always be plenty of pharmacists who are perfectly willing to distribute RU-486 and its modern medical derivatives; a woman desiring this can simply request to speak to another pharmacist at the window, or she can get back in her car and drive down the block to another pharmacy. If there are no other pharmacies in the area which do sell the drug, then there is an opening in the market that another pharmacist can move in and fill. That is part of the greatness of America's free-market economy: the freedom to sell, or not to sell, almost anything—and the freedom of the customer to take their business elsewhere.
The contradiction in the left's message on these issues is striking, and it is leading them to a vital crossroads in thought and policy. The pro-“choice” movement needs to decide very soon if it is actually for choice—including the choice to see a sonogram, and the choice whether or not to distribute a morally questionable drug—or if it is merely for abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment