"Sanctity of Human Life Act" expands definition of life, not scope of government
11/16/07
Erick at Peach Pundit writes the following about Georgia 10th CD Rep. Paul Broun, Jr.'s new bill which would define life as beginning at fertilization, and therefore make abortion the legal equivalent of murder:
I suspect that whatshisname would not have done this.Now, I'm not even going to quibble about whether this bill is "right" or "wrong," or is a "good idea" or "bad" -- I simply want to respond to those who call acts such as this an expansion of government in the name of so-called conservatism.U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Athens, introduced a bill Wednesday that essentially would ban abortion.
The “Sanctity of Human Life Act” declares that human life begins when an egg is fertilized and offers 14th Amendment protections, including the right to life, to unborn embryos and fetuses.
“The right to life is our most important fundamental right, and it should be defended vigorously and absolutely,” Broun said in a statement.
The bill is an attempt to legislatively overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that permits abortion, and would make obtaining an abortion “illegal or incredibly difficult,” Broun’s spokesman John Kennedy said.
What was the guy’s name that ran against Broun? The guy the Dems over in Athens are trying to remember today so they can claim they voted for him?
This bill would enshrine into law the status of a human — from fertilized egg to the grave — as a living person; therefore, any acts to protect the life of that person/foetus/embryo would not (under the new definition) be a de facto expansion of government power or control, but a provision of the same protection of rights (in this case, the right to life) afforded all humans to an embryonic or foetal human.
If the definition of living person is expanded, what also expands is not government, but the population which is entitled to government protection of their basic rights. It's as simple as that.
Labels: Blog
