Indiana Abortion Law Upheld
I read in the Thanksgiving Day edition of the Louisville Courier-Journal that the Indiana Supreme Court has upheld a law requiring counseling for abortion 18 hours before the procedure for young women and, further, it must be done in person.
The issue was over whether or not the requirement places an "undue burden" on women wanting the procedure. After the 4-1 decision, abortion opponents called this "a common-sense victory." Both sides made their voices heard:
Ms. Cockrum went on to point out that "we have only five counties out of 92 in Indiana where there are abortion facilities, and it's a pretty big state." Yes, Ms. Cockrum, you make a great point. Why does it not make you ask the question of why there are only five out of 92 counties that offer abortion procedures in your entire state. Could it be that your state doesn't support abortion? Could it be that you are trying to force the people of your state to endorse and embrace something that they realize goes against the very fiber of what it means to be human?
Nah, I didn't think you would get it.
The part about in-person counseling is an issue because out of twenty-three states that require women to undergo a waiting period including counseling, only six require that the counseling be done in person, the others (including my current residence of Kentucky) conduct the counseling over the phone. In my opinion, that is a great weakness since it lacks the personal touch and involvement of caring individuals who can sit eye-to-eye and discuss the issues involved, especially on a subject that will not only determine the fate of a child, but will also change the woman going through with the abortion forever.
The part that I found gratifying about this decision (besides the fact that this establishes precedent for future cases) is that in addition to the opinion given that this law does not violate the Hoosier state's right to privacy, Justice Brent Dickson went a step beyond simply concurring with the opinion to write a separate opinion. In it, he wrote that the court should have "explicitly declare(d) that the Indiana Constitution does not protect any alleged right to abortion."
Dickson went on to say, "In addition, because the challenged statutory pre-abortion requirements not only discourage harm to fetal life, but also protect the health of pregnant women, particularly in light of the risks to women from post-abortion psychological harm, I am convinced that these requirements not only are a proper exercise of legislative power but also are in direct harmony with the furtherance of core values [of the state constitution]."
Good on Justice Dickson. Not only should this be considered common-sense (a rare commodity in society of late), but also a point upon which other elected officials should have the courage to stand. Indiana state representative Eric Koch was right in stating that the abortion debate will continue to rage, but moves like this one go a long way to help settle some of the preliminary issues involving the limits to women's rights and to further the subsequent issue involving the extent to which the rights of unborn children must be taken into consideration.
The issue was over whether or not the requirement places an "undue burden" on women wanting the procedure. After the 4-1 decision, abortion opponents called this "a common-sense victory." Both sides made their voices heard:
Mike Fichter, executive director of Indiana Right to Life, said the court's decision confirms that the waiting period is 'a reasonable and necessary requirement to ensure that women are not rushed or pressured into decisions that will impact their own lives and the lives of their unborn children.Ms. Cockrum makes this "legal medical procedure" sound like a root canal. Of course, to people like Ms. Cockrum, a root canal is preferred over the inconvenience of being responsible for another human being. What this law does, however, is to uphold the demand for counseling that serves to remind young women seeking abortions that, regardless of whether they choose to go through with the abortion or not, they are still responsible for another human being. They will either be responsible for his or her upbringing, or his or her death...responsibility will not go away with a "legal medical procedure."
But Betty Cockrum, president of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, said, 'it's a disappointing day for women,' many of whom will now have to travel twice, miss two days of work or find two days of child care to obtain a legal medical procedure.'
Ms. Cockrum went on to point out that "we have only five counties out of 92 in Indiana where there are abortion facilities, and it's a pretty big state." Yes, Ms. Cockrum, you make a great point. Why does it not make you ask the question of why there are only five out of 92 counties that offer abortion procedures in your entire state. Could it be that your state doesn't support abortion? Could it be that you are trying to force the people of your state to endorse and embrace something that they realize goes against the very fiber of what it means to be human?
Nah, I didn't think you would get it.
The part about in-person counseling is an issue because out of twenty-three states that require women to undergo a waiting period including counseling, only six require that the counseling be done in person, the others (including my current residence of Kentucky) conduct the counseling over the phone. In my opinion, that is a great weakness since it lacks the personal touch and involvement of caring individuals who can sit eye-to-eye and discuss the issues involved, especially on a subject that will not only determine the fate of a child, but will also change the woman going through with the abortion forever.
The part that I found gratifying about this decision (besides the fact that this establishes precedent for future cases) is that in addition to the opinion given that this law does not violate the Hoosier state's right to privacy, Justice Brent Dickson went a step beyond simply concurring with the opinion to write a separate opinion. In it, he wrote that the court should have "explicitly declare(d) that the Indiana Constitution does not protect any alleged right to abortion."
Dickson went on to say, "In addition, because the challenged statutory pre-abortion requirements not only discourage harm to fetal life, but also protect the health of pregnant women, particularly in light of the risks to women from post-abortion psychological harm, I am convinced that these requirements not only are a proper exercise of legislative power but also are in direct harmony with the furtherance of core values [of the state constitution]."
Good on Justice Dickson. Not only should this be considered common-sense (a rare commodity in society of late), but also a point upon which other elected officials should have the courage to stand. Indiana state representative Eric Koch was right in stating that the abortion debate will continue to rage, but moves like this one go a long way to help settle some of the preliminary issues involving the limits to women's rights and to further the subsequent issue involving the extent to which the rights of unborn children must be taken into consideration.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 11/28/2005 07:00:00 AM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home