Recently on both the WashU Campus and in the surrounding neighborhoods, there have been many signature gatherers for a proposed referendum on abortion that the ACLU is trying to put onto the Missouri ballot this fall. This signature gatherers usually phrase their support of the referendum as being about “choice,” or “women’s rights,” and very rarely discuss what the referendum would actually do. As a result, I would like to put forward information explaining what would happen, should the ACLU achieve its goal of passing the referendum. This information is all publicly available, and I was notified of it by Missouri Right to Life.
First of all, the referendum aims to create a “right” to abortion within the Missouri Constitution. This “right” would be very broad, vague, and would prevent any restriction on abortion whatsoever. For example, any law mandating parental consent for a minor’s abortion would be eliminated. Secondly, this “right” would allow on-demand abortion for all nine months of pregnancy, including late-term abortion, partial-birth abortion, and abortions where the unborn child would remain entirely viable out of the womb. It is worth noting that this proposed policy of legal abortion with no gestational limit is in line with only China and North Korea, which are by no means countries that we should seek to emulate in any way.
Secondly, this proposed amendment would be bad for women. First of all, the amendment removes the ability of women to sue an abortionist for medical malpractice. Furthermore, the State would lose any ability to set health and safety standards for abortion clinics. Abortion clinics would also no longer be required to show the mothers ultrasounds of their unborn child.
This referendum, though couched in the language of “choice,” would create two very authoritarian measures. First of all, it would force Pregnancy Resource Centers to refer mothers to abortionists. This, obviously, would force those at the Pregnancy Resource Centers to violate either violate their consciences or close, which could deprive mothers of an important resource for helping take care of their babies. Secondly, the amendment, by creating a “right” to abortion, would make it impossible to prevent taxpayer-funded abortion, and would thus force pro-life taxpayers to subsidize the practice.
Abortion is obviously one of the most contentious subjects in our country today, and it is a subject that many people have differing opinions on. However, whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, it goes without saying that the ACLU’s proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution is extreme. It is my personal view that future generations will judge us based on how we treat the most vulnerable, which in our society are the unborn, and should this referendum pass, I believe that future generations will think us, in contemporary Missouri, to be no more moral than the Spartans who would abandon their unwanted babies, or the Carthaginians who would sacrifice them. To me, as it is scientifically clear that life begins at conception, our own society lacks the moral standing to critique other because of our permissive attitudes on abortion. As such, the ACLU’s proposal, rather than promoting “choice,” “freedom,” or “rights,” would instead set us back to the level of those ancient and brutal cultures.