Bill would curb coerced abortions (Connecticut)

Can those who call themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice" in what some call the "abortion wars," find some common ground? We'll see.

Rep. Alfred C. Adinolfi, R-Cheshire, has introduced a bill, titled "Prevent Coerced Abortions" (H.B. 6193), which has been referred to the legislature's Judiciary Committee.

When the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, thus making abortion more available, it not only allowed women to choose to have an abortion, it also made it easier to force a pregnant woman to have an abortion which she did not want and did not choose.

A study by David Reardon, Ph.D., of the Elliott Institute, found that up to 64 percent of women obtaining abortions felt pressured, even forced, sometimes violently, to have their abortions. Thus, many of the women obtaining the 57 million abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade may not have been obtained by women willingly exercising their so-called right "to choose" — but, rather, were forced into having abortions by someone else.

A pregnant woman can be pressured by a boyfriend, husband, employer, coach, doctor, social worker, teacher, her own parents, or the parents of her boyfriend, to get an abortion. Because of her pregnancy, she may be kicked out of her home, lose her job, a college scholarship or government benefits, be dropped from a sports team, or have her partner threaten to walk away or file for divorce. Go to www.theunchoice.com for documentation of many such cases of forced abortions.

....it not only allowed women to choose to have an abortion, it also made it easier to force a pregnant woman to have an abortion which she did not want and did not choose.

This a great point which is a logically achieved outcome. If having an abortion is a perfectly acceptable decision, so is the pressure to convince the woman to make that decision. This type of logic applies elsewhere… why not with abortions? If it is an acceptable decision for a sick person to end their life, it is also an acceptable decision for their family members to make that suggestion, strong encouragement etc. I’ve been making a similar point for years about unintended consequences which goes like this…. The argument from the pro-aborts is that the fetus is not developed far enough to sustain life on its own. However, the body parts from an abortion have ‘value’ to others and for a variety of ‘purposes’ and once that was figured out, the objective of those who are in the ‘business’ of abortion has been to maximize that ‘value’. This means that the body parts need to be allowed to grow bigger and bigger before they are used for other purposes…..bigger to the point where the aborted babies are in fact completely able to sustain life on their own (with sustainability aided by both medical advancements and the legal arena which has extended allowable abortion periods). And all this has contributed to develop of a ‘market’ for aborted babies…. Ah yes, the law of unintended consequences….

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.