Florida House Approves Abortion-Ultrasound and Waiting Period Proposal

Florida House Approves Abortion-Ultrasound and Waiting Period Proposal

Under a bill the Florida state House approved on Friday morning, anyone wanting an abortion would be required to have an ultrasound and given an option of seeing it beforehand. Pro-life lawmakers hope the requirement will further reduce the number of abortions in the state.

The ultrasound requirement would not apply to women who are victims of sexual abuse because Republican Rep. Denise Grimsley added an exception to the bill to exempt them.

Backers of the ultrasound provision and waiting period say it would help women make better decisions than having an abortion. They also said it wouldn’t be unconstitutional by infringing on so-called abortion rights.

”If you read this bill, it doesn’t do anything to take away a woman’s right to choose,” Rep. Kevin Ambler said. “What it does is put a thoughtful, deliberative process in place.”

As I mentioned the other day, pro-choicers frequently say they’d like to make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” Well, here’s another chance for them to do so, and without impacting a woman’s “rights.” In fact, this even enhances a woman’s ability to make a choice since it’s helping her get all the information about the choice she’s about to make. She’ll be given the option to see the child she’s about to abort, but still be allowed to make up her own mind. What could be more pro-choice than that?

So naturally, those who propound “choice” oppose this bill.

Wendy Grassi, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Southwest & Central Florida said she opposed the ultrasounds requirement and said the legislature shouldn’t tell abortion practitioners what to do.

Once again, we see “choice” is just a smokescreen for no restrictions on abortion.

Dinesh D’Souza: Speaking as a Former Fetus…

Townhall.com::Speaking as a Former Fetus…::By Dinesh D’Souza

Speaking as a former fetus, I welcome the Supreme Court’s decision permitting regulation of partial birth abortion.

D’Souza goes on to compare the current debate over abortion to the Lincoln-Douglas debates over slavery in the US Senate campaign of 1858. He compares the “pro-choice” position on abortion to Douglas’ “pro-choice” position on slavery:

Douglas, the Democrat, took the pro-choice position. He said that each state should decide for itself whether or not it wanted slavery. Douglas denied that he was pro-slavery. In fact, at one time he professed to be “personally opposed” to it. At the same time, Douglas was reluctant to impose his moral views on the new territories. Douglas affirmed the right of each state to choose. He invoked the great principle of freedom of choice.

“I’m not pro-abortion. I’m personally opposed, but I’m reluctant to impose my personal position on others.” Sound like anyone we know?

Lincoln, the Republican, disagreed. Lincoln argued that choice cannot be exercised without reference to the content of the choice. How can it make sense to permit a person to choose to enslave another human being? How can self-determination be invoked to deny others self-determination? How can choice be used to negate choice? At its deepest level, Lincoln is saying that the legitimacy of freedom as a political principle is itself dependent on a doctrine of natural rights that arises out of a specific understanding of human nature and human dignity.

The argument between Douglas and Lincoln is very similar in content, and very nearly in form, to the argument between the pro-choice and the pro-life movements. Pro-choice advocates don’t like to be considered pro-abortion. Many of them say they are “personally opposed.” One question to put to them is, “Why are you personally opposed?” The only reason for one to be personally opposed to abortion is that one is deeply convinced that the fetus is more than a mere collection of cells, that it is a developing human being.

If abortion is something you personally oppose, why do you oppose it? There’s really no reason to oppose it other than your belief that the abortion is killing a living human person. And if you believe that, how can you believe that it’s possibly a valid choice? You’re either lying about being opposed to it, or selling your conscience for political gain.

Finally, Dinesh turns his sights on the hard-liners in the pro-life movement:

In my view the pro-life movement at this point should focus on seeking to reduce the number of abortions. At times this will require political and legal fights, at times it will require education and the establishment of alternatives to abortion, such as adoption centers. Unfortunately such measures are sometimes opposed by so-called hardliners in the pro-life movement. These hardliners are fools. They want to outlaw all abortions, and so they refuse to settle for stopping some abortions, with the consequence that they end up preventing no abortions. These folks should learn some lessons from Abraham Lincoln.

He’s exactly right. Rome wasn’t built in a day. A quixotic focus on saving all unborn lives will cause us to fail to save some lives that could be savable now. In World War II, we defeated Japan by taking small island after small island. An assault on mainland Japan early in the war would have been a bloodbath and a failure without having taken the islands that allowed to have supply lines for our troops. We’re in a similar situation today: we’ve taken our first island, but there are many more to go. We’re not in any position to attack the mainland.

At UD, Justice Scalia illustrates ‘originalist’ view

At UD, Justice Scalia illustrates ‘originalist’ view

The Trenton native, appointed by President Reagan in 1986, holds to an “originalist” view of constitutional interpretation. He looks for the original meaning of the document, rather than reading it through an ever-changing contemporary lens as the “living document” school of interpretation would.

To put it another way, Scalia interprets the Constitution by actually reading it, rather than as according to his own opinions. A “living” Constitution is no Constitution at all, since any meaning the person wants can be read into it. Who can forget the Supreme Court declaring the death penalty unconstitutional in the 1970s, even though the Constitution expressly refers to capital punishment multiple times? A judge’s responsibility is to interpret the law, not to write it. If a judge is interested in writing law, than they are honor-bound to resign their position and run for legislative office where the writing of laws is properly done.

“You must drive from your mind that every stupid law is unconstitutional,” he said. “Laws can be stupid but constitutional. There are innumerable laws like that.”

And that’s the point. Too many judged see their view as correcting mistakes made by the Legislature. A law may be stupid, but if it doesn’t violate the Constitution, a judge doesn’t have the authority to override it on a whim, although many do just that. Judges need to remember that they are one person or part of a small group of people, especially when compared to a legislature which holds committee hearings, receives phone calls and letters from constituents, meets with experts and many other discussions of bills before they are enacted as laws. We should put our faith in that process rather than a small hearing with just a few representatives of two opposing sides present.

Judges need to rule only in the clearest situation of wrong-doing and minimize the impact of their decisions. Let the political process handle as much as possible. When judges attempt to do too much, the country gets divided. (See Roe v. Wade.)