Religious Right vs. Religious Liberty
The Women’s Right to Know Act is another one of those ubiquitous pieces of legislation where the title says exactly the opposite of what the bill does. The title should be: Government’s Use of Force to Make Women Look at Pictures of Fetuses They are Thinking about Having Aborted.
North Carolina Representative Ruth Samuelson, a Mecklenburg Republican, is going to receive a religious award (it should be called a reward) for her part in inflicting this intrusion on other women. There is much to digest here. As this is a state law, reference to the state constitution is where we begin:
Article 1, Section 1 states: We hold it to be self evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their on labor, and the pursuit of happiness.
Article 2, Section 13 states: All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.
Ms. Samuelson is receiving her award at the St. Patrick’s Cathedral, during the annual Red Mass and banquet of the St. Thomas More Society, where services are to be led by Bishop Peter Jugis and Abbot Placid Solari. It would seem Ms. Samuelson is being rewarded by a religious group for ignoring the state Constitution, by interfering with other’s ability to worship according to their own consciences and with their pursuit of happiness.
Let me posit this: Most women who have ever contemplated abortion, much less had one, have done so with great personal anguish and reflection. An abortion is one of the most emotionally difficult decisions a woman ever makes for the simple reason her body and mind are designed to do everything possible to have children and to make them successful in life. Yet due to unfortunate circumstances, some women feel that abortion is the correct decision at certain times in their lives.
Where then does government get the authority to dictate to a woman how she shall worship God, use her liberty, and pursue happiness? It does so when a personal religious belief on the part of various elected representatives encourages them to dictate to others how they shall live. It is a simple thing. It is the Religious Right abusing the power of elected position to inflict their religious beliefs on others. It is the reason we need a third party, because too often when we elect a Republican they bring their minority position opinion of religion with them to their elected position. They don’t believe in Religious liberty; they believe in inflicting their religious beliefs on others. In fact their entire position on abortion, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and Religious Liberty remind me of a glop of pasta at a Halloween party: doesn’t it feel like brains? And you say EWWWOOO!!
Modern medicine has brought us the ability to have abortions relatively safely. Prior to that women had them but too often died. Yet no matter how many abortions have occurred, the population keeps growing. Due to modern medicine, women now live through childbirth where previously they too often didn’t. And due to modern medicine we can look in the womb and see the fetus’s features and movement. Because of this there are some who would dictate to others when the life of a child, a human, starts. Some say at the first trimester, some say at conception, and the argument goes on. We have allowed the Supreme Court into this most personal and religious of matters.
It is actually a simple question with a simple answer. Life never ends and thus has no beginning. Eggs and sperm are seeking each other in order to survive. Most of them are unsuccessful, but they try. For this very reason women are as driven to have sex as men. The next question is: When does society have a right in the distinct life of a person? Until a baby is born there is no person except in the mind, imagination and physical being of a pregnant woman. But it is here Ms. Samuelson decides to dictate to others how to live, how to pursue happiness and how to worship God.
Using the very medical abilities that keep women alive through childbirth and keep babies alive after birth, Ms. Samuelson and friends want to force women to agonize even more about their decision over whether or not to stay pregnant. This is not a kindness; it is a blatant misuse of power to inflict her religious beliefs on others. It is mean-spirited and a typical case of ‘holier than thou’. In Ms. Samuelson’s case it seems to reflect a Catholic belief that tells her she has a right to dictate to others how to live.
Have you ever heard of The Inquisition? It was a long-running policy of the Catholic Church of psychologically, financially and physically torturing those who didn’t follow the dictates of the Catholic Church. (See “The Inquisition: Hammer of Heresy,” by Edward Burman.)
This new policy of using government to force women to incur more psychological and financial pain if they even think about an abortion fits the mold. So in the attempt to accurately name laws, here’s another suggested and more appropriate moniker: Samuelson’s Inquisition Methods to Influence Abortion Decisions.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=7404
