OK, let me get this straight. If the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, many Republican states will legislate that all abortions will be illegal in their states. The Nebraska governor has even said that will apply to cases of rape and incest. No exceptions. So, in effect, that once the baby is conceived the state takes control of that fetus–a fetus that is legally a full human being, apparently with the full rights of any citizen. That opens the door to charge the mother with murder if she aborts the baby by any means available including pills. But if, before the abortion, the mother takes her case to court in an attempt to obtain an abortion in another state, or country, or where it is legal, or even that state where it is illegal, there would then have to be a lawyer for the fetus and a lawyer for the mother, if I’m reading this correctly. After all, since the fetus is considered a full and independent human being, it would be entitled by law to have legal counsel.
During the trial, the mother, of course, can speak for herself, but who speaks for the fetus? How do we know what the fetus is wanting in this case? Could be the fetus has a disability and doesn’t want to be born; or maybe the fetus does want to be born but has doubts about it given the world situation; or maybe is just feeling crappy that particular day of the trial–you know, moody and kvetchy or antsy and pissy and kicking a lot–and doesn’t really want to say what it wants. Actually, come to think of it, the fetus doesn’t yet know how to speak!
What happens then when the jury goes to deliberate? The jury has to start guessing what the fetus wants because they really can’t trust that a proper deposition has been done with the fetus. So how do they determine the truth of what the fetus wants? They know of course what the mother wants but not the fetus. They know what the fetus’s lawyer wants. So since the fetus is legally a human being, the jury finds itself in a quandary. Now picture this happening all over the United States. Needless to say, we quickly become the laughing stock of the world, and hopelessly stuck in a myriad of legal quagmires.
But perhaps, with our present Trump Republican Party, we already are the laughing stock, and the butt of jokes worldwide. It’s likely. But that doesn’t seem to deter Trump and his cult followers. Now if being a human being is defined as the taking of the first breath, same as any other animal, then things are much clearer. The decision about the fetus lies entirely with the mother–and father, usually. That’s how it’s done in most other advanced countries that are not governed by religious dogma. No legal issues there. The mother gets to choose. She is the only full human being here. The fetus is legally an integral part of the mother. The fetus actually is the mother since there is no separation between the fetus and the mother. The umbilical cord proves that–a cord that has certainly not been installed via medical procedure. Without the cord, the fetus dies.
Ironically, by declaring a woman’s right to choose illegal if she chooses abortion, we will be granting more civil rights to an unborn not yet fully human fetus than we do its mother! It’s makes no sense, mixing church and state like way too much salt in a pot of soup!
The state has no rights to any biological part of the mother, as it has no rights to any part of the father. If we start allowing the state to have such rights, that is tantamount to fascism, and exactly what Hitler set up in Germany before and during WWII. In fact we went to war to oppose this sort of state takeover of the human body, mind, and spirit. The Holocaust showed us the ultimate consequences of such a state takeover. Citizens had no choice over any aspect of their lives. Is such a government pro life? Certainly not.
And that, dear readers, is exactly where we, in America, are headed, and in some respects, already there. And this from a Republican Party that wants the federal government to regulate practically nothing, including business, food, health care, consumer rights, vaccinations, oil and coal extraction, ethics, guns, speech, transportation, mining of other natural resources, the environment and climate change, the economy, civil rights, etc., etc.
Why now women’s bodies and the fetus’s they carry?
And today yet more evidence of hypocrisy and ennui. Every single Republican in the House, save 12, voted against an emergency bill to address the baby formula shortage. Pro Life?
And today the House voted in favor of a bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022, which steps up the sharing of information about domestic terrorism among government departments and creates an interagency task force to analyze and combat white supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of the uniformed services and federal law enforcement agencies. The House passed the bill by a vote of 222 to 203. All the no votes came from Republicans; all the Democrats voted in favor. Pro life? Pro democracy?
If you are thinking of voting for Republicans in the midterm elections, please, please think again.