Of course there is going to be a court challenge, so the battle will join again. Once again we will see hypocrisy on both sides. But let me lay out a big hypocrisy that the political left simply will not be able to overcome:
Why is it okay for a woman to choose to end a life (and make no mistake that is what she is doing) without waiting for three days but at the same time, the people who advocate for the "right to choose" think that it is right to make a woman who wants to buy a gun for self-protection should have to wait?
The hypocrisy on the political right is that they claim to stand for personal freedom, individual choice, but want to deny a private choice because of their ideology. Neither side has a consistent stand on the matter.
Both sides are guilty of abandoning their principles in order to impose on someone a moral choice they think superior to all others. That particularly high horse ridden by each side chafes me to no end. But there is another aspect of abortion law that bothers me:
Where are the father's rights in this matter? Leave aside cases of rape and incest because they are special circumstances where the father of the child has forfeited any say in the matter, in other cases why doesn't the father get a say? Of course, women will argue "it is my body that the child is in?" That is true, but unless the woman got pregnant by artificial insemination or immaculate conception, in order for that child to have been created--the woman had to share her body with the father. The resulting child is genetically half the father. If the child is born, then the father has rights, but the political left's response is that during the gestation period the father has no rights. That is wrong, it is a narcissistic self-delusion and it thinks the worst of men.
Of course, lots of people will ask, what do you think? Well, let me start with my base position: I could never counsel a woman to get an abortion. Call it morality, call it conservative, call it what you will, I just don't think I could do it in good conscience. Yet, if a law makes a woman wait to think about the consequences of her actions, and she considers them, and still decides to move forward with the abortion, it is not my place nor should it be the state's place to stand in the way. Will the law have an effect on reducing the number of abortions? I don't know and we may never know if the law is struck down. But if the law simply says you have to wait and does nothing else, what is the harm to the choice options of the woman?
I have no evidence to believe that before seeking to obtain an abortion a woman has not considered the implications of her actions. By the same token I don't have any evidence to support that they do think about either. So what is the harm in waiting? If it is such a problem, could not the woman simply go to another state that doesn't have a three day waiting period to get an abortion?
I fail to see how this law in any way restricts a woman's "right" to get an abortion.
__________________________________Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers