Monday, July 2, 2012

If you disagree with a law...go around it! (UPDATED)

by Gregory Allen

A new state law in Mississippi has created more obstacles for women seeking constitutionally promised health rights. Women seeking abortions may now be forced to drive to another state to obtain the health procedure, or as opponents desire, deliver the unwanted pregnancy for lack of medical access.

Not surprisingly, according to, Mississipi has the highest teen birth rates. Amanda Peterson Beadle explains for, that Mississippi does not require sex-education in school, "Mississippi does not require sex education in schools, but when it is taught, abstinence-only education is the state standard."

Mississippi may not have an objective or well-informed perspective on sex-education or reproductive rights, but this does not give its citizens claim to deny the rights of others, simply because they disagree with the premise or procedure. As a means of circumnavigating Roe V. Wade, conservative states are seeking obstacles to make access to abortion more difficult for women.

The new law, taking effect around July 2, now requires those who perform abortions to be certified in credentials difficult to obtain and exercise.  In doing so, many clinics, included the single remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi, may be forced to close.

As Emily Wagster Pettus describes for the Huffington Post, "The law requires anyone performing abortions at the state's only clinic to be an OB-GYN with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. Such privileges can be difficult to obtain, and the clinic contends the mandate is designed to put it out of business."

The mentality personified by the new law is childish, selfish, and designed only to prevent others from accessing health care certain individuals disagree with for privately-held beliefs. If displayed in another form, the ideology would be soundly criticized.

For example, fundamentalist Darwinian enthusiasts might oppose heart, lung, or kidney transplants because this disobeys and breaks with the conventions of evolution. This cruel perspective would not be legislated, however, because of the negative effects and grossly intrusive results it would have on persons seeking to obtain a healthy lifestyle in a manner they personally select.

Mississippi is not alone in seeking these restrictive laws, or exercising the ideology of finding a way to eliminate freedoms regardless of their constitutionality. The behavior is soundly absurd, and this terminology is not used for dramatic effect; imagine the chaos and cruelty that would result from a society where citizens would only have to follow the laws they chose to?


MSNBC recently reported that Judge Daniel P. Jordan III, has delayed implementation of the law, although it is still unclear how long this delay will last.

From and news services:

Supporters of the new law have stated their motivation is not to end abortion, but to protect the health of women, and that the new bill is "designed to protect patients."

Opponents of the bill claim this is only a "thinly veiled attempt to ban the procedure in Mississippi."

"In his July 1 ruling to temporarily block the law, Judge Jordan wrote that the plaintiffs, the state’s sole abortion clinic, “have offered evidence — including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers — that the Act’s purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi. They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted.”"

No comments:

Post a Comment