In the April 23 news article “Bill to extend abortion wait heads to N.C. House,” Rep. Jacqueline Schaffer is quoted, “This bill is and always has been about protecting women’s health. This is empowering to people. This enables women to make informed decisions.”
Yet it would force an “N.C. legislature knows what’s best for you” external constraint on personal, intimate and legal health care decisions. Its initial iteration would have prevented training and supervision of care providers at our two state-funded medical schools. It cannot be construed as forwarding either patient empowerment or safety. We may disagree, but we cannot have the discourse necessary in democracy unless we are honest about our motives.
What an “interesting” juxtaposition: The same N&O edition reporting this legislative effort to restrict personal freedom contains articles about others to reduce government intervention and expand liberty for people who would deny service to residents based on their personal lifestyles (“Reject license to discriminate,” April 23 Point of View) or who desire to possess firearms (“Armed anger,” April 23 editorial).
Some elected officials seem to kneel behind a false shield of “self-determination” while wielding their authority to coerce other residents to conduct their daily lives by those officials’ own credos. Count me more cynical than curious.
Kenneth J. Fortier