I haven’t read the Obama Healthcare act, but I’ve heard rumors that it vastly broadens the rights of women to abortions. You may wonder what further abortion rights women need. It was determined thirty-nine years ago, in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, that women — who had been legally banned from having abortions everywhere in the United States — in fact had a constitutional right to abortion.
At 2,700 pages, the Obamacare act defies thorough reading. I have read Les Miserables, War and Peace and the Vincent Bugliosi book about the Kennedy assassination, which weighs slightly less than Kennedy’s limousine, but I have never read any single work as long as 2,700 pages. Probably nobody has. The impression we have is that Obamacare was put together by hordes of slaves, much as were the pyramids of Egypt, with no individual responsible for, or aware of, more than a tiny fraction of the total work.
Still, rumors persist that the act authorizes an entirely new type of abortion that has been advocated by some of the more militant feminists. It is what is known, in lay terms, as a “post-birth abortion.” This allows women, even after they have given birth, to terminate the lives of their offspring. It doesn’t apply merely to newborn babies. It applies to any child that any woman has had.
Well, not quite. Because abortion wasn’t declared constitutional until 1973, post-birth abortion applies only to children who were born after the court handed down its decision. Anyone currently older than 39 years needn’t fear that his mother will kill him, or at least not legally.
Some legal scholars are skeptical about the constitutionality of the post-birth abortion provision, although the point was not raised during the arguments about Obamacare before the Supreme Court. The scholars suggest that post-birth abortion conflicts with other provisions in other laws, that generally prohibit murder. If the prohibition of murder were to be held constitutional by the Supreme Court, then post-birth abortions might be prohibited a fortiori.
The militant feminists who advocate post-birth abortion argue, however, that it is not a form of murder. Rather, it is a logical extension of “women’s sovereignty over their own bodies.” If women are allowed to kill and remove fetuses from their wombs, then they should continue to have complete sovereignty over whatever emerges from their wombs, living or dead.
Many legal scholars contend that this is “barbaric, extra-legal nonsense,” but none of them will say so except privately and anonymously. None of them has directly challenged the militant feminists on this issue. As one of them said: “Have you ever tried arguing with a militant feminist?”
The feminists themselves point out that there is legal precedent for post-birth abortion. In ancient Rome, the father of a family, known as the paterfamilias, had legal power of life and death over the other family members. The only difference, the feminists argue, is that under Obamacare the power would be in the hands of the mother of the family. “Women would exercise this power far more prudently than men ever did,” one feminist loudly insists.
Economists say that the introduction of post-birth abortions could greatly change the behavior of American families. Lazy good-for-nothings like the members of Occupy Wall Street would be less inclined to move back in with their mothers when they encounter financial setbacks. Instead, they would be apt to move as far away from their mothers as possible, so as not to irritate them. This could lead to significant migrations comparable to those that occurred when Americans from northern cities discovered the Sun Belt.
Post-birth abortion also could deal a devastating blow to nursing homes. No longer will middle-aged people fob their helpless, old mothers off on nursing homes. Everyone knows that all elderly women loathe nursing homes. Now, however, they can do something drastic in retaliation, such as remanding their children to post-birth abortion clinics, from which no living creature returns.