Support for Any Individual Right Requires Support for All Individual Rights.
In the wake of the real chance that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, this crucial principle is utterly lost on shocked reproductive rights advocates. And it completely undercuts their case against overturning Roe v. Wade.
One example of their damaging hypocrisy is their general support for legally imposed COVID vaccination mandates. What ever happened to “My body, my choice”?
Another is the conflation of abortion rights to abortion access. In a New Jersey Star-Ledger Guest Column, Let’s make abortion truly accessible in New Jersey, Kaitlyn Wojtowicz wrote:
Earlier this year, advocates of reproductive health and rights won our long campaign to guarantee the right to legal abortion in New Jersey when Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law the Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act. But while abortion is legal in our state, many New Jerseyans face barriers to accessing abortion care. What good is a right to abortion, when you can’t actually access care?
Too many New Jerseyans are unable to access abortion care because of insurmountable financial barriers. Even for patients with insurance coverage, out-of-pocket costs, such as copays and deductibles, are a barrier to accessing this essential health care. Also, a number of community members, including people who are undocumented, have no access to insurance coverage.
We have much more to do in New Jersey to ensure that everyone — regardless of income, insurance coverage, or immigration status — can access the care they need to make their own personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. [My emphasis.]
Notice the switch. A “right to abortion” becomes a “right to access abortion” and other services. What good is a right to your property if the state can simply seize it to pay for someone elses’s abortion without your consent? What about the people who will be forced, through their taxes—or, in the case of insurance mandates, through their premiums—to fund this access? Don’t they get to make their own personal decisions about their money and their lives?
Now consider Tom Moran, who writes for the Star-Ledger Editorial Board. In The Supreme Court throws Malinowski a lifeline, Moran writes:
So, if you want to find out what [NJ state Senator Tom] Kean thinks on abortion, you have to look at the paper trail. Many people in New Jersey think of him as pro-choice, but they may be mixing him up with his father.
Kean Jr.’s final vote in Trenton came in January, when he opposed a bill to protect abortion rights in New Jersey, a safeguard against the loss of Roe v. Wade. He voted repeatedly against funding for Planned Parenthood during Chris Christie’s governorship. And in his failed 2006 campaign for the U.S. Senate, the National Right to Life Committee spent more than $30,000 on his behalf.
How does opposing taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, a private institution, equate to not being pro-choice? They are two entirely different, and opposing, issues. Termination of a pregnancy is a woman’s right. Taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood is a violation of the right of individual taxpayers to spend their own money as they see fit.
More importantly, the bill Moran refers to is NJ S49, which “Codifies [the] constitutional right to freedom of reproductive choice.” Sounds good. But the Bill Summary states: “Specifically, the bill codifies the constitutional right, which has been recognized by the New Jersey Supreme Court, to freedom of reproductive choice, including the right to access contraception, to terminate a pregnancy, and to carry a pregnancy to term.”]
My emphasis.
Once again, we see “access” equated to “right”. But this is wrong. A true rights advocate, including a supporter of abortion rights, would vote against this bill. This bill is poison for individual rights. There is no right to force others, through their taxes, insurance premiums, or other means, to pay for another’s contraception, abortion, or prenatal healthcare. Tom Kean Jr., being a Republican, is probably not a “ true rights advocate.” But he is right to oppose this bill. It does not contradict his pro-choice position. It is consistent with that view.
A right is not an automatic claim on the property or services of others. A right to abortion is not a right to pick others’ pockets, or to force healthcare providers to perform the procedure. A right is a guarantee to freedom of action to pursue your values. A right is not a guarantee that you will achieve your values. There is a right to abortion if you can acquire it through voluntary consent. There is no right to access abortion, or any value, by force. A right is not access. A right to access is a “right” to violate the rights of others. Such a “right” is not a right at all. It is a crime.
Wojtowicz, Moran, and their ilk are not genuine defenders of individual rights and thus not effective advocates for abortion rights. There is no right to abortion through the coercive non-concensual expense of others. No wonder abortion rights advocates are losing this fight. They haven’t learned that support for any individual right requires support for all individual rights.
Related Reading:
Sanders Pitches ‘Right’ to Healthcare: Cruz Checks Swing
Man’s Rights by Ayn rand
Constitutional Distortions: Free Speech vs. Freedom of Speech
No comments:
Post a Comment