Kentucky’s State House of Representatives passed, by a large margin (69-20) a bill that would outlaw most abortions, contingent on the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade.
If passed by the State’s Senate (expected) and signed by the Governor (also expected), it’ll have legal problems, though. Major ones will be what constitutes “overturning,” how an actual overturn would be discriminated from serious modification of Roe‘s ruling, and since Roe is medical technology oriented, a restatement of the threshold for viability.
Still, though, the arguments for and against the bill are instructive.
State Congressman James Tipton (R), speaking for the bill, put the matter starkly:
Not one of us, man or woman, has the moral authority to take the life of an unborn. There is no other medical procedure that I know of that the goal is to intentionally take the life of an unborn child.
On the other hand, State Congresswoman Mary Lou Marzian (D) insisted that this sort of bill (indeed, any bill that limits abortion) constitutes an unacceptable intrusion into the private medical decisions of women. But she was unable to answer—or chose to avoid—questions about the unborn baby’s right to life or about the medical decisions, private or otherwise, of those representing the unborn baby’s interests.
And these objections by Marzian to Kentucky’s bill are just cynically irrelevant:
If you want to go have a colonoscopy, should we get ourselves involved in that? If you want to take Viagra, should we get ourselves involved in that?
No life is in the wind in those procedures, though. Only one life even is involved in these utterly non-lethal procedures. Marzian, et al., know this.