What men say women can't do

Controversy over the meaning of our nation's most majestic guarantees frequently has been turbulent. Abortion raises moral and spiritual questions over which honorable persons can disagree sincerely and profoundly. But those disagreements do not then and do not now relieve us of our duty to apply the Constitution faithfully," Harry Blackmun said in his obiter dictum, which was challenged June 4 as the Senate voted 282 to 139 to ban a procedure politicians provocatively refer to as "partial birth abortion."\nThe issue is not new and the arguments never change. It is always a fetus' life versus a woman's rights. But while the debate over when life begins has never achieved a consensus, our concept of civil rights is fairly solid, having been honed by years of social change and court decisions. It is not the job of our legislature to define when life begins. Philosophy and religion has tried to tackle this task for centuries and there is still no end in sight. But protecting the right of a person after they have been born is the sacred duty of a democratic government.\nThe Declaration of Independence promises us "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It also guarantees that all men are created equal. This means women, too, despite the archaic wording. And herein lies the importance of abortion politics. So long as they cannot control their own reproductive system, women will remain second-class citizens. Without reproductive freedoms, economic and professional equality with men is impossible. Women cannot "pursue happiness" -- at least in the American definition of the term -- without the identical right to control their own bodies that men have enjoyed since the dawn of civilization. \nChipping away at abortion rights is dangerous on two counts. It threatens the interpretation of the First Amendment that everyone has a right to be left alone and it infringes on the rights of the medical community to operate in scientific freedom. Creating laws that are willing to sacrifice the rights of its citizens in favor of an abstract concept could be disastrous. \nA society where the rights of a living woman have been subjugated to the rights of the womb is an unequal society -- and an unequal society is an inherently sick society. What is the next step after outlawing abortions? Forcing conception? And what, after the women have been returned to their rightful place near the hearth? Who will be the next group to be kicked back into line? \nHow can a logical mind accept that a politician decides what is really best for a woman, when that decision can only be up to that woman and her doctor? How can politicians be so consumed by their own illusions of grandeur and morality that they would dictate to a physician which procedures they can and cannot perform? If that were the norm, then Scripture would have to become the new required reading for first year medical students.\nThe only rights granted to the Congress in Article I of the U.S. Constitution are that of protecting the property and security of a nation. It can coin money and it can declare war. It can regulate commerce and it can maintain a navy. And so on. Additionally, the document also mentions promoting the "progress of science." But legislating away the rights of women and doctors under the guise of morality never makes an appearance. So, legislators, stick to what we elected you to do and keep the pulpits out of the House. And the Senate.