Leave It to the States
Bill Quick

Colorado Bill Would Declare Fundamental “Right” to Abortion, Prevent Any Pro-Life Legislation | LifeNews.com

With pro-abortion Democrats controlling the Colorado state legislature and the governor’s office, abortion activists are pushing what pro-life groups are calling the most radically pro-abortion legislation in the state’s history.

Colorado Family Action has alerted its members about SB 175, that it says pro-life advocates need to steadfastly oppose.

“This is a radical bill that would create a “fundamental right” to abortion among other things defined as “reproductive healthcare” in this bill,” the group says. “No Colorado State governmental body at any level would be able to enact a policy that “denies or interferes with an individual’s reproductive health care decision.”

“SB 175 is an extreme piece of legislation that would have a destructive impact on Colorado’s ability to limit or regulate abortion and other items defined as “reproductive healthcare” in this bill,” CFA goes on to say.

I’ve said all along that these sorts of issues should be left to the states, as long as such does not violate incorporated Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

If Colorado wants to turn itself into a statewide abortion mill, and you don’t like that, you have at least two options:  Don’t go there or, if you are there, leave.

Posted in Abortion permalink
Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments

Leave It to the States — 13 Comments

  1. I object to the notion that a government (state or federal) can create a “fundamental right” through legislation. If fundamental rights can be created that way, they can also be revoked, which is another way of saying that a “fundamental right” is just another government permission.

    Fuck that.

    It will be fun watching the religious so-cons squeal over this, though.

    • “If Colorado wants to turn itself into a statewide abortion mill, and you don’t like that, you have at least two options: Don’t go there or, if you are there, leave.”

      As someone who at times could be described as a religious socon, I’m 100% ok with this…as long as you’re ok with letting other states ban abortion completely.

      It will be fun watching the libertines squeal over it, though.

      • Sure. Read what I just wrote, Rick.

        BTW, this doesn’t apply to stuff like slavery or gun bans. States aren’t constitutionally permitted to do stuff like that. But I don’t see anything in the Constitution about abortion.

          • From a moral standpoint I think abortion is an individual right, an aspect of the right to liberty, and as such should be protected by the government in the same way as gun ownership. Politically, though, just because I think something should be a constitutionally-protected right doesn’t mean it is, and I’m not willing to pretend the Constitution says something it doesn’t.

            Given the division on this issue, and the fact that the Constitution doesn’t speak to it, devolving it to the state level is probably the best solution we can hope for right now. So while I wouldn’t like to see state governments banning abortion, because I would consider that a rights violation, I could live with it politically, reluctantly, as the best compromise possible given current public attitudes. But devolving to the state level means exactly that — no efforts at the federal level to impose a nation-wide ban.

            I’d also be working to build support for a Constitutional amendment to make abortion into a constitutional right — much as the anti-abortion people would doubtless be doing from the opposite direction.

            • I know that Rand is four square for abortion, but I’m sorry, I just can’t make myself believe that one second before birth a fetus has no human rights, and one second after, it has all of them. I don’t think even Rand would think it was that simple if she were still alive.

              • I can’t make myself believe that either. The usual argument I see in defense of that position is not persuasive to me — it feels too much like a rationalization.

                While the constitutional ‘reasoning’ in Roe v. Wade is simply awful, on a policy level I think it reached more or less correct conclusions. Unrestricted abortion early in pregnancy with gradually increasing restrictions as time passes and the fetus develops.

                • Yeah, in essence it all comes down to the time. Which seems sort of artificial, but at the moment, it’s probably the best we can do.

                  Somewhere across the continuum from “a blastula is not a human with rights” to “a baby one second before birth is fully human with all rights pertaining,” is a moment…but where?

                  Not to mention that science keeps on changing the ground rules even as we speak.

            • “From a moral standpoint I think abortion is an individual right, an aspect of the right to liberty.”

              I just can’t agree with that. You’re arguing that liberty allows a woman to create something that, absent a problem, will become a human being, and then kill it.

              • Yes, that is pretty much what I’m asserting. The crucial difference is between “will become” and “is”, i.e. between the potential and the actual. Actual human beings have rights. Potential ones do not. And while, like Bill, I may not know exactly where the potential becomes actual, I am pretty confident that it isn’t at conception. That means there is a period of pregnancy in which abortion is not killing a human being.

                I don’t expect you to agree with that. The more pertinent issue is, given our disagreement on the moral point, can we nevertheless find a political compromise that we’re both willing to accept while the larger culture thrashes out the moral question in hopes of reaching a deeper consensus.

                • Fair enough–but the consequences of you being wrong are far worse than the consequences of me being wrong, which is why it’s better to default to my view.

                  Don’t forget–every “potential” human being will become one unless something goes wrong. The fact that it happens a lot doesn’t change that previous sentence.

                • How do you figure, Rick? Every foetus which becomes a child may grow up to become a net drain on resources. The way American society is structured now, the smart money is on any given child being a parasite rather than a productive member. And that’s even if he doesn’t become a murderer or a bureaucrat. No, if there’s any question about the mother not wanting the kid, it’s much better to take the safe choice and abort the foetus. The mother can always get pregnant again later, when she actually wants a kid.

  2. Something between 10% to 25% of all known pregnancies end in Spontaneous Abortion, or what we call miscarriage, within the first 20 weeks.

    Thus, the fierce moral certainty that a fertilized egg will become a human being is misplaced. “God” seems to take care of the issue on his own.