The problem is that we have to take a stand. Sometimes you can justifiably support a civil law without compromising a moral law. But that’s not always the case.
This is an example of one. Let’s look at the facts as we know them. There can be more that we do not know.
The counselor moved the arm of the escort. It does not say that he was aggressive or tried to do harm to the escort.
The counselor wanted to get some information to the mother who was entering the abortuary. It does not say that he was obstructing her passage.
Should the counselor have touched the escort? No. Was the action anything different from what any spontaneous action on anyone’s part? No. Someone blocked his access to the mother and he sponteaneously moved the person’s arm out of the way. Many of us would have done the same thing and not have though about it, because no harm was intended to either the escort or the mother.
Conclusion, the law is being applied to a spontaneous human behavior that did not intend to do harm and did not do harm. The question becomes, why? The answer is as I said above. I learned, from a father who did this for a living for the Dept of State, that laws were often written and enforced to dissuade and discouraged, more often than to defend innocents and protect rights. The method is simple. You identify something as a right, that no one else would think to argue about, such as access to reproductive healthcare. Who’s going to argue with that? But what you have in mind is to discourage others from interfering with abortions. If truth be told, we have never needed laws to protect people’s rights to access healthcare facilities. Only nut jobs attempt to stop people from entering healthcare facilities. That can be taken care of under harassment laws, which are already in the book. So, . . . when you create a specific law for access to clinics that offer reproductive healthcare, what services are you actually protecting? What services would people have a problem with? The answer: abortion.
What is the purpose of such a law? To discourage people from interfering with abortions. This law works just as the nuclear arms issue worked during the Cold War. No one planned to use them. But having them on both sides discouraged anyone from seriously thinking about it. Yes, laws do discourage, because they threaten people.
This law does not simply say that women have a right to enter a clinic. It also carries a penalty for those who interfere. The first part of the law is really unnecessary. No one has ever questioned the right of a woman to obtain reproductive healthcare. Why pass the law unless you wanted to tag on the penalty? This is the part that is meant to discourage or even threaten.
Now comes the question. When such a law is applied to a person such as the pro-life worker in this case, is it being applied with honesty? Did the pro-life worker violate the woman’s constitutional right to healthcare?
If we think like the abortionists do, then we would agree, because they consider abortion healthcare. The problem with agreeing with them is that pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not a cure. Even when the child has a handicapping condition, the pregnancy itself is not a disease. Therefore, abortion is still not a cure.
If we think rationally, a woman who approaches an abortuary is not seeking reproductive healthcare. She is going there with the intent and mission to allow someone to kill her child.
Now we have people on these threads who are defending the law over the right of the child to be protected by the pro-life worker.
Sorry, but according to natural law, the rights of the unborn child trump the rights of the escort not to have his or her arm touched. The escort was not hurt or threatened in any way. The act was a knee-jerk reaction not the part of the pro-life counselor, which could have happened in any situation and would have been blown off.
Think of the number of times that you go to a voting site and are met at the door by members of both parties all wanting to speak to you and all wanting to give you a flyer or some such thing. Are they interfering with your access? Are they annoying? Sometimes. Is their presence enough to pass laws about free access to voting sites? No. We already have laws that protect the right to vote, just as we have laws that protect the right to healthcare.
This was a law suit brought on because the issue was abortion, not access to healthcare.
Moral human beings need to remember, there are times when the law is immoral or when the law is moral, but its application is immoral, because it’s being manipulated.
Let us not get caught up in the rhetoric of the pro-abortion and pro-choice people. They have many good lawyers behind them who are excellent at rhetoric.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
