After my last post, I took some time to read over the Oklahoma bill that will require abortion providers to both perform an ultrasound and give an oral, detailed medical description of the embryo or fetus before performing an abortion. Gov. Brad Henry vetoed the bill, but his veto was overturned by the Oklahoma Legislature.
What interested me most was Gov. Henry’s veto letter.
Gov. Henry's primary objection to Oklahoma's HB 2780 was that the bill "lacks an essential exemption for victims of rape and incest." The only exemptions from an ultrasound-and-detailed-description would be abortions in the cases of medical emergencies (defined as actions to prevent the death or 'irreversible impairment of a major bodily function' of the woman).
Gov. Henry continues, "By forcing the victims of such horrific acts to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the procedure after they have faced the unspeakable trauma of rape or incest, the state victimizes the victim for a second time." And, "HB 2780 represents an unconstitutional attempt by the Oklahoma Legislature to insert government into the private lives and decisions of its citizens."
Both of Gov. Henry's objections beg the question. In both objections, the governor assumes that the unborn are not human.
Though he readily views women who have been raped or impregnated incestuously as victims — and they certainly are — there is no mention of the victimization of the unborn, whose lives are ended unjustly by abortion.
Neither does the governor include the unborn as "citizens."
Back to basics: If the unborn are human — and they certainly are — then taking their lives is not a choice that anyone is free to make.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but while the Governor certainly should be counting the unborn as humans, I'm not sure that he should be counting them as "citizens." I mean, even if abortion becomes illegal in some states, I doubt that the unborn will become citizens pre-birth, or am I mistaken?
ReplyDelete