On Tuesday the Republican platform committee adopted an anti-abortion plank that allowed no exception for rape, incest or health of the woman. That same day, Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, who agrees with the party stand enthusiastically, refused to give up his Senate nomination. He believes his is a divine mission to defeat Sen. Claire McCaskill and further push anti-abortion legislation.
Rep. Akin’s absurd claim that women who are the victims of “legitimate” rape can “shut the whole system down” and refuse to become pregnant has pushed the abortion debate front and center.
For most of us, the nut of this argument is the right of women to make their own health care decisions. A no-exceptions ban on abortion denies women that right. In an America which puts high value on personal freedom, an absolute ban on abortion has no place.
Or, to be specific, every woman should have the right to make her own abortion decisions. If she, like Rep. Akin, feels that she must carry any pregnancy to term, regardless, society should not interfere with her decision. For the same reasons, any woman who does not want to give birth should have the right to terminate a pregnancy,
From time to time, this writer has argued that if this particular medical procedure which only involves women must be the subject of lawmaking, then only women legislators should be allowed a vote on the matter; preferably, women lawmakers between the ages of 18 and 49.
President Barack Obama voiced a similar sentiment this week, observing that men — who make up the majority of legislators at the state and national level — shouldn’t make laws restricting the personal freedom of women.
VERY SIMILAR personal freedom arguments apply to the Republican decision to put a plank in the party platform calling for a constitutional ban on the marriage of homosexuals. Such bans are labeled Defense of Marriage amendments. But there is absolutely no evidence that a marriage between two men or two women has any effect — good or bad — on other marriages between men and women.
To be sure, many traditional marriages turn out to be horrible mistakes and wind up in divorce court. But no one is suggesting that traditional marriages should be defended with a constitutional ban on divorce.
It only takes a casual glance at the marriage scene to see that many of the past rigidities have faded away, with religious exceptions in some counties. In the U.S., the freedom to marry has leaped over the racial, religious and status barriers of the past. Only homosexuality remains.
Looking for an explanation, we must go beyond the fact that homosexuals make up only 3 to 6 percent of the population — exact numbers are not available — so it is easy for such a large majority to impose its will on so few. But it takes more than the observation that those who are different generate contempt to explain the political importance the matter now claims.
Perhaps politicians seize on opposition to abortion and gay marriage as an alterative to talking about much more difficult issues such as creating jobs, restructuring taxes, lowering the deficit, raising the level of public education, making a college education affordable, providing health care for 100 percent of the population and, in short, governing the nation.
Maybe these safe social issues have been made important by crafty office seekers who would rather talk about anything else than address the real needs the nation faces at this critical juncture in our history. Maybe hammering abortion and gay marriage is really just a cop-out.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
