My friends and family know I tend to tear up at any sad news story or movie where a child is at risk or is harmed in any way. Our children are our heritage, and I look forward to many years of enjoying my own children and grandchildren. When this pro-abortion legislation came up for Idaho voters to consider making abortion essentially unlimited, removing parental permission for minors, minimizing current Idaho law protecting the unborn among other changes, I decided to read the proposal front to bottom, line by line. What I read was disconcerting and reckless for Idaho’s pre-born children. Some you have to read between the lines to determine the real intent.
I am not a far-right-wing ideologue or dismissive of a woman’s right to choose; in fact, I am sensitive to it, but when it comes to children, I prefer to promote equal protection. With few exceptions, we need to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and who are more vulnerable than unborn children?
Let’s turn to our 200-year-old Declaration of Independence for proper insight.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The fact that our nation is based on the belief that God, not government, granted certain unalienable rights deserves our attention. The first of which is life. This alone denotes that developing unborn humans residing in the womb have an unalienable right to live. Furthermore, the unborn have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All three rights are human rights and deserve respect and support at every level, including preborn children. Denying these unalienable rights to unborn children is defying this God-given destiny. Even if you disagree with the concept of deity, our nation’s founding principles are about humanity having a fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Now back to the legislation. Voting yes creates a right to reproductive freedom and privacy, and the wording is purposefully ambiguous to allow for abortion at any time, even though it says not until viability, which each baby in the womb has varying estimates of when viability could be achieved. Any licensed health care provider can make these determinations, which means it could be someone other than a physician. The claim that Idaho’s current laws are too restrictive should cause anyone to be concerned about the welfare of unborn children. Current law does allow for certain conditions where abortion is safe and legal.
Voting no keeps current Idaho law in force that prohibits abortion except to protect against the death of the mother and during the first trimester in cases of rape or incest which have been reported to law enforcement. Seems simple and reasonable.
I know many may say that being a male member of society, a man should have no say over a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion or not. They are right in that a man has no actual right to force anyone to do or believe anything, but as a human in our society, men retain the right, as do women, to voice opinions on matters of morality on any topic, especially those that affect unborn children. Men who father unborn children should also have a say since the unborn child carries half the father’s DNA. Thankfully, many churches and religions have also spoken out opposing Proposition 1 based on moral grounds.
In limited exceptions, the right to choose is best made at the time the child could potentially be created at conception, not when the human baby is developing or about to enter the new world.
Idaho is a conservative red state, and there are many who are trying to swing it leftward. Vote no on Proposition 1 to protect Idaho’s future children.