Monday, August 28, 2006

The Utah Trigger Law

The one thing America needs to do more than anything else is to relearn the art of discourse. What we have in America at the moment is a far left and far right that is so skilled at undermining discourse that they are effectively shutting the population at large out of the debate about what we want our culture to be.

In my last post, I ranted against progressive scientists who are trying to engineer society by changing the meaning of the terms conception and abortion. The term redefining marketing campaign was designed to sell a medicine called The Morning After Pill. You take this pill the morning after having sex and there is a good chance a woman won't get pregnant. The medication has its place, especially in the case of rape or condom failure. The act of redefining terms has positioned the medication to be used as the primary means of contraceptive.

Today, I had the misfortune of stumbling on the Utah House Majority website. Apparently the Utah Legislature will be trying to sneak in a "trigger bill" that will immediately become law in the case that Roe v. Wade gets overturned. The goal of the trigger bill is to shut out the debate that will take place if Roe v. Wade gets overturned.

Both the fare left and right pull tricks to stop debate.

I happen to hold to the opinion that abortion is wrong. I do not hold the opinion that, just because something is wrong, it must be illegal. I also recognize that a large number of people do not share my opinion.

If Roe v. Wade gets overturned. Our society will be launched into a major debate about the beginning of life. A trigger would stymie that debate.

The primary argument against an activist quart is that, when judges legislate from the bench, they effectively stop debates that should take place within the culture at large and body politic.

Personally, I think that, at this point it time, it is better to leave abortion safe and legal and to engage in open discourse about the issue.

I was supportive of Utah’s first cut of a Utah’s parental consent bill. This bill made a clear statement that the State of Utah is opposed to abortion. The first version of the Utah Law required that minors inform their parents before undergoing an abortion. The law also had doctors read a prolife statement to everyone seeking an abortion in the state. This was a good law because it engaged people in a debate about what they were doing.

Sadly, Utah’s archconservative legislature chose to muck up a good law with a dictate that the father of a pregnant minor could force her to carry the child to term. The final revision transformed an affirmative prolife statement into a mean spirited jab that made the family patriarch the ultimate arbitor of his daughter's body.

IMHO, the debate is far more important than the law that results from the debate. I suspect that the majority opinion is that abortion is something that is wrong and that, as a civil society, we must find ways to reduce abortions. However, we fall short of wanting to throw hundreds of thousands of women and doctors in jail by making it illegal. In other words the majority opinion is that abortions should be safe, legal but are still wrong, and should find ways to avoid the problem.

The only way we will ever find a positive way of reducing this problem is by finding a way of engaging in discourse without weirded out conservative legislatures imposing dictates.

No comments: