How about the two female Michigan legislators who the other day were complaining about how conservatives who approve of requiring an ultrasound be performed on every single pregnant woman, whether she wants one or not. And then these two mentioned the trans-vaginal ultrasound requirement under consideration, thus requiring the actual invasion of a woman’s body. These two legislators were finally silenced because they used the word ‘vagina’ in their testimony. Now admittedly, this is anecdotal, but it did happen, a restriction of free speech, and is a cause for concern.

Your Editor does not approve of the silly tactic of adding the ultrasound requirement; it is an attempt to make a legal procedure more difficult without actually making the procedure itself illegal. I absolutely support making abortion itself illegal, and chargeable as premeditated murder, under the philosophy I mentioned in my final sentence, “The notion that your choices should not be any of the government’s business unless those choices violate someone else’s rights seems to apply only to abortion these days.” Abortion kills a living human being, and thus violates someone’s rights.

And then there are those who would forbid the provision of contraceptives to women in need, because this violates the doctrine of a particular religion. Do they not realize that contraception just might prevent an unwanted pregnancy, thus obviating a possible abortion? Rational thinking is not to be expected by people and institutions involved in sensitive issues, the outcome of which is intended to deny ones freedoms! So the dispensing of freedoms can be very arbitrarily selective, when religions doctrinaire faithful individuals attempt to enshroud everyone with their restrictions of freedoms. In other words, this goes both ways, something we rarely hear from the right!

You have not stated the conservative position accurately, and you know it. The entire debate this spring was not about prohibiting access to contraception, but whether those people and institutions which do not believe that artificial contraception is moral should be required to provide it and pay for it anyway. There is no serious effort anywhere in this country to make contraception illegal.

“Mr Jackson, it’s like they can’t help themselves. In deciding what’s for our own good, they have, in effect, put the good of the state above the freedom of the individual. They haven’t quite made it to ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer, but they are getting closer by the day.”

Hogwash! If it is a deprivation of freedoms which you folks approve, then that is perfectly fine.

How about the two female Michigan legislators who the other day were complaining about how conservatives who approve of requiring an ultrasound be performed on every single pregnant woman, whether she wants one or not. And then these two mentioned the trans-vaginal ultrasound requirement under consideration, thus requiring the actual invasion of a woman’s body. These two legislators were finally silenced because they used the word ‘vagina’ in their testimony. Now admittedly, this is anecdotal, but it did happen, a restriction of free speech, and is a cause for concern.

And then there are those who would forbid the provision of contraceptives to women in need, because this violates the doctrine of a particular religion. Do they not realize that contraception just might prevent an unwanted pregnancy, thus obviating a possible abortion? Rational thinking is not to be expected by people and institutions involved in sensitive issues, the outcome of which is intended to deny ones freedoms! So the dispensing of freedoms can be very arbitrarily selective, when religions doctrinaire faithful individuals attempt to enshroud everyone with their restrictions of freedoms. In other words, this goes both ways, something we rarely hear from the right!

Your last statement really nails it. Abortion seems to be the exception to the rule, when it comes to liberals and our liberty.