The "Freedom of Choice" Act

Personal freedom and liberty has always been the backbone of what makes America so great.  Patrick Henry's famous words "Give me liberty, or give me death!" are a testament to just how important personal freedom is to Americans.  But exactly how much are we willing to sacrifice for the personal freedom to choose?  

Enter the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill first considered in 1989, newly revised and being considered by many state Congresses across the country, including the Rhode Island Congress.  The Freedom of Choice Act would lift pretty much all state and federal restrictions on abortion, including:

- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states 
- Forty-four states’ laws concerning parental involvement 
- Forty states’ laws on restricting later-term abortions 
- Forty-six states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers 
- Twenty-seven states’ conscience protection laws for institutions 
- Thirty-eight states’ bans on partial-birth abortions 
- Thirty-three states’ laws on requiring counseling before an abortion 
- Sixteen states’ laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion 

And one bill is going to overturn all of those laws.  Think about what's going on here.  I know the freedom to choose is incredibly important, but is the freedom to choose really worth so many innocent human lives that don't even have a say in it? 

There are so many laws in this country protecting the freedom of life.  There's laws against homicide, abuse, suicide,  etc.  So why are there no laws protecting human life inside the womb?  How is it that a human life inside the womb is worth less than a human life outside the womb?  Many would argue that a fetus inside the womb isn't technically a life at all.  Science seems to think otherwise:

"There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed."--Dr. Fritz Baumgartner, MD.

Going by this definition of life, it is hypocritical to think that the government should be able to protect life outside the womb, but not be able to interfere with life inside the womb.  How is it worse if a mother kills her child still in the womb versus killing her child while outside the womb?

May argue that a woman should be in charge of her own body.  That's all well and good, but if the thing inside of her is truly another life, than it is no longer her body is it?  Many argue that it's a matter of viability.  Viability is defined as:

"having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus."

A child inside the uterus is completely dependent on the mother for its life.  I get that.  But what's the difference once the child is born?  If you give birth to a child and just leave it somewhere and ignore it, it will still die.  It is still just as "viable" and dependent on the mother as it was when it was inside her.  

And the Freedom of Choice Act would lift so many bans on partial birth abortion.  There are a few ways to perform partial birth abortion, but one common way involves turning a child around inside the mother so it is born feet first.  Because the child is still technically unborn when its head is still inside its mother, they can give birth to the baby up to its neck, and then insert a knife into the back of the baby's skull in order to severe its brain stem and quickly kill it.  The practice is disgusting and barbaric and should not be allowed in a country that holds the right to life so sacred.  But then again, if pregnancy termination is allowed during earlier stages when the fetus (still a life with its entire genetic makeup) what's the difference if it's allowed to be terminated at any stage?  

The Freedom of Choice Act also lifts laws requiring counseling before an abortion.  A decision as big as abortion should not be made alone, and the ability to just walk into a clinic without first talking to anyone about it and considering alternatives is definitely not the right way to go.  In this way, rash decisions that will likely be regretted later will be made.  

I know that was more of a rant against abortion in general, but since this bill pretty much attacks all laws regarding it, there's really no other way to address it.  Feel free to post your opinions on the topic.