Most of you know by now that KY has a new bill on abortions and it has stirred up people across the country. I've read this law and I've come to terms with it quickly. I want to share with you where they got it wrong and where they got it right. Before I do so, I want to be clear on something. I am not in support of this legislation. Not by any means. I do not agree with it. I do not agree with the way it was written, the clauses within it, or the sneaky way it was rammed through. However, I do find it important to make a few points that, as you'll see, go hand in hand.
Where they got it wrong: No exception for rape/incest.
The bill makes it illegal for a woman to have an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The only clause for exception is medical need. This means a medical need for mother/child signed off on by a qualified doctor. There is no exception for rape or incest. The biggest problem here is that it doesn't work with another clause in the bill. It gives the "father" the right to sue a doctor or a mother if she has an illegal abortion (after 20 weeks). In fact, the clause would allow the "father" to sue no matter when the abortion was completed (or attempted). Now, I'm certainly not against allowing the father of a child to have a part in this decision making process, per se. However, because it gives no exception for rape/incest it opens the door here. If you go by the words alone - you can see the problem. This would allow a rapist to sue the victim if he is the father of her child. It would allow a father to sue his daughter if he impregnated her through incest. You see? This law allows any father to sue over an abortion for any child he has fathered. No exceptions. THAT is the problem. Women already face an uphill battle in cases of rape and incest. The courts already fail to properly charge and convict on these types of crimes. Courts already allow offenders to get off with plea deals and probation in many cases. To allow a rapist father then to sue the woman he raped is further trauma to a victim. Kentucky already allows any father to sue a woman for custody and visitation of a child that is proven his with DNA. There is no exception to that law for rapist or incest either. So in reality a man in KY who rapes a woman could sue her if she has an abortion, and he could sue her for visitation/custody if she does not have an abortion. This is wrong.
Where they got it right: No exception for rape/incest.
No, I am not duplicating the above paragraph. You see, KY got it right and wrong on this same issue. I've heard for years from the anti-abortion groups that abortion is "killing babies". They shout it from the rooftops that abortion is an abomination against God. It's not Christian. It goes totally against all of God's wishes. I know you've heard it too. Yet if you look at MOST of the abortion laws that these same people try to pass, they all have a rape/incest exception. Well, until now in Kentucky, that is. The conservative, Christian, anti-abortion crowd almost always gives an exception for rape/incest. But the thing is, that goes against what they are all screaming about. You see if you want to make abortion illegal because it is immoral, that's one thing. Morals are so subjective. But if you are saying that abortion goes directly against God, then it's another thing totally. You see if you try and claim that it's wrong to kill babies (and that's what they all claim) then how can it be OKAY to kill those that are created by rape and incest? It's not the baby's fault that he/she was created in this manner. If you truly believe all life is created by God, then you cannot turn around and say that it's okay to kill a child created in one manner or another. You must then believe that it's wrong to kill all babies because they are all created by God. Yet hardly anyone ever makes this argument. Nobody wants to stand up and try to make it. I get it. It's a tough one. It's hard to look at a rape victim and tell her that she must have that baby. But you know what? It's hard to look at a 14 year old girl living in poverty and tell her that she must have the baby she's carrying after sleeping with her 15 year old boyfriend. It's hard to tell a woman who is 35 and already has 4 children she can barely feed that you're sorry her birth control failed but she must now give birth to a 5th child that she cannot afford to feed or house or clothe. It's hard no matter which way you go. However, if you really want to say you're totally against killing babies; that all babies are created by God and it's wrong, then you must stand up and say that this includes ALL babies. You cannot give an exception on how that baby was created. It just does not add up. So in this vein, KY is one of the few states that actually got this one right. It's all or nothing if you're going to make laws based solely on religion. You don't get to pick and choose. Only when you make all abortion illegal are you following what you say is God's word. I don't think there is any spot in the Bible that says all babies are God's precious creatures except for those created by rape/incest.
You might think that what I've said is wrong. You might agree. Either way I hope you've at least started thinking about this and that maybe you're interested enough to look into this new law. As I stated at the beginning, I am not a supporter of this law. I do not think it is right for a bunch of politicians to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies - or to try and make medical decisions for them. However, if you support this law you really need to make sure you understand the law in its entirety. I've only touched on TWO pieces here. There are several pages of this law to be read and I could write more I'm sure. But I think this is enough to get people thinking.
What are your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment