Mark the Voter here on the subject of the Amendment G ballot measure; it looks to be nip-and-tuck as
to the outcome. This battle on abortion rights has been occurring through most of my lifetime and I
reckon will continue for a long time to come.
The irony of the situation is that even if the abortion measure should pass, the pro-choice people will
still find themselves helpless in providing abortion access. They’ve botched it once again, it appears.
By trying to ease everyone into their arguments for abortion they’ve used jargon that is only going to
tangle them up later when challenged.
First define ‘trimester’. Oh, it’s easy to speak of when you are talking about days in school, but in a
pregnancy? How does anyone know for sure whether the woman is in her first or second trimester,
second or third? Honestly, you don’t; for the most part it’s only a guess. Either the woman/female is
pregnant or she isn’t. As we always used to say: “There’s no such thing as being ‘kind of’ pregnant.”
Another hornet’s nest they’ve opened up with the legal framework cited in the amendment is the vague
meaning behind the broad, somber wording – “Any regulation of a pregnant woman’s abortion decision,
or of an abortion during the second trimester must be reasonably related to the physical health of the
pregnant woman.” That has us all scratching our heads because no one is saying precisely what that
‘regulation’ entails, or who decides what is ‘reasonably related’ and even what is meant by ‘physical
health’ of the woman. Does ‘physical health’ mean when the ‘pregnant woman’ is hemorrhaging, is
overweight, or is experiencing discomforting indigestion?
And who besides the woman decides in the second trimester? The ready answer is always “The woman
and her doctor”, but this is not stated in the amendment. So then could this mean the woman and her
boyfriend, the woman and her naturopath, the woman and her unlicensed backroom ‘specialist’?
Sounds pretty dangerous to me!
I know you think I’m just being stubborn here, but by this time I’ve heard every conceivable argument
for and against abortion, and whichever of the myriad directions the conversation might take, it always
ends the same way – either you are ‘pro-life’ or you are ‘pro-choice’.
The pro-choice people wish to make abortion safe, private, readily available, unrestrictive, etc., as
though they were deciding upon a sandwich or a movie or, for that matter, having sex. They get
frustrated because they continually run into obstacles that keep abortion from being a simple matter.
They could have it their way if they could get say 75-80% of the population thinking the same way they
do, and this is perhaps what pro-lifers most fear. (To them I would suggest just stay pro-life and the
odds will remain in your favor.)
The abortion mandate is doomed from the start because it cuts across every aspect of humankind’s
natural sensibilities. It’s actually the most vile form of discrimination that exists. This is why Planned
Parenthood and the abortion industry cloak the reality of destroying life with pseudo-scientific labels
like ‘fetus’ and ‘birth products’. They like to insist that they have science on their side, but I too have
science on my side — as well as nature and nature’s God!
The pro-choice vote may have its day, but they won’t have their way. As long as human beings embrace
life, a strong defense will remain for the unborn — regardless “of race, color, natural origin, sex, religion,
or age”.
It’s almost laughable to see what tottering legs Amendment G is standing on with its summary: “Judicial
clarification of the amendment may be necessary. The Legislature cannot alter the provisions of a
constitutional amendment.”
Well, what exactly are ‘the provisions’ of this amendment? Is it the vague regulations that were
previously mentioned? In what case might clarification be necessary, and in who’s court? Pardon my
sarcasm, but “Good luck with that!”
Pro-choicers, I think you’ve just bought yourself another nag.
