There was a lot of fuss about Hoag’s decision to
stop conducting abortions, but some of it was misinformed. Hoag has not
decided to “deny the Constitutional Rights of Woman” as some assert.* Let’s
review.
The Roe decision was the beginning
The Supreme Court issued its decision about
abortion on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote.
The Court found that
abortion fell under the Fourteenth Amendment as a privacy issue. It acknowledged that
abortion might also fall under the Ninth Amendment (powers not otherwise
assigned belong to the people).
The ruling subjected all laws against abortion
to strict scrutiny. It did not establish a new “right to abortion; it
established that abortion fell under the privacy protections.
Not a general womens' rights issue
The Court added that the primary right being
preserved was that of the physician's to practice medicine freely. A specific
note excluded the intent to address women's rights in general.
The
so-called “Constitutional right to abortion” actually meant that states and
municipalities couldn't broadly legislate against abortion within the
protections of privacy afforded by the Constitution.
Back to Hoag and agitation
That
the “Rabble Babble Abatement Squad” from Hoag misspoke initially is clear.
(Misspoke is a euphemism for “appeared to lie through their teeth.”) And, Hoag’s
CEO could now be just an employee of a religious group that generates a lot of income
by operating hospitals. Those points, embarrassing as they may be, are irrelevant.
As a
business, Hoag had -- and has -- no obligation to sponsor or support any
particular medical procedure. If their decisions are colored by, or demanded
by, their associates and partners, that’s not much different from Ford’s management decision to
discontinue the Edsel. We didn't hear any outcries that Ford was denying a “Constitutional
Right” to people who like funny noses on their cars.
Just because you have the right . . .
Those
demonstrators and agitators were exerting their Constitutional rights to free
speech and assembly. They, like Hoag, were free to make misguided statements ad
lib, under their inalienable right to speak before they understood the
question. Or, under their undeniable right to lie to the press in the hope that
no one would notice.
Have you noticed that logical argument and noise level are usually inversely proportional?
*One
commenter, for example, wrote: “Abortion is a constitutional right of women. The decision
by Hoag, one of Orange County's largest community hospitals, to curtail this
medical service for religious and or political reasons is an injustice and for
all practical purposes a limitation of women's constitutional rights.”
No comments:
Post a Comment