Why Should Alabama Have The Power To Compel Women To Give Birth?

The Alabama legislature has passed the nation's strictest abortion restriction virtually outlawing the procedure. Doctors who perform the procedure are deemed to have committed a felony and can face up to 99 years in prison. Notably the bill does not make exceptions for rape and incest. The bill awaits the signature of Governor Kay Ivey and she is widely expected to sign.

This measure comes after neighboring Georgia enacted a similar law which would outlaw abortions after six weeks (the so-called heartbeat bill). Similar measures have also passed in Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio.

But Alabama's legislation goes much further. The objective is obvious. With Frank Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the Supreme Court and more conservative judges being appointed by President Trump, Republican controlled legislatures are taking this as their opportunity to see that Roe v. Wade is struck down. While always a hot button issue, abortion will be a more significant issue in the 2020 presidential election than in any presidential election in nearly 30 years.

The question I have regarding abortion is by what authority does Alabama or any other state have the power to compel a girl or woman to give birth? While the Alabama law doesn't sanction criminal proceedings against women who seek abortions by imposing such penalties against abortion providers, the state is effectively compelling women to give birth. Some women might be in a position to get the procedure outside the state, but with neighboring states enacting similar measures it will inhibit women from being masters of their own body. And why should a woman in Alabama be compelled to flee her home state as if she were a fugitive from justice?

In the past, such a measure would be little more than an act of mischief easily struck down by a court. But that safeguard could soon be gone. And what good comes of it? Why does society want to encourage a proliferation of unwanted children? While there may be families prepared to adopt, but adoption is far from a straight forward process. And if a woman does not wish to give birth why put her in such a position in the first place?

Compelling a woman to give birth is bad enough, but the very idea the state should compel a woman (especially a minor) to have to give birth to a child fathered by a blood relative or a rapist is beyond cruel. It demonstrates contempt towards victims of a heinous crime and punishes women far more harshly than the men who initiated unlawful contact with these women in the first place.

Over the years, I have seldom discussed the question of abortion simply because the Courts have managed to reign in the excesses of anti-choice legislation. However, this judicial safeguard could soon evaporate. Thus the necessity of raising the most basic of questions concerning personal freedom. If a woman does not have the freedom to terminate her pregnancy then what meaningful freedom does she have? She must live her life at the sufferance of the state. If there was ever an area of the law which demanded limited government this is surely it. So why is it that conservatives who demand limited government where it concerns the marketplace insist upon imposing total state control on the question of whether a woman can choose to give birth?

I would very much like to have a good answer to that question.