September 13, 2017

“PRO-CHOICE’ VS. “PRO-ABORTION”: The Daily Signal ran an interesting item that ought to have libertarians (and the few honest liberals left) asking themselves what “choice” means.

I did not know that the “abortion” pill could be neutralized if a woman changes her mind. According to The Daily Signal, in late July California’s Board of Registered Nursing informed pro-life Heartbeat International that it could award continuing education units for nurses who demonstrate a grasp for the science and patient care involved in counteracting the effects of a chemical abortion. But suddenly:

Acting at the behest of abortion activists in the state Legislature and online media, the board—which is overseen by California’s Department of Consumer Affairs—reversed its decision from just a month prior, demanding that Heartbeat International “cease and desist” educating nurses on a breakthrough medical intervention that can allow a woman to halt a chemical abortion.

Consent is only as good as the transparency of the information provided to the person making the choice. While I consider myself “pro-choice” (with limitations) for libertarian reasons, for abortion to be a truly free choice women must be able to hear all their options. Restricting that information is not “pro-choice,” it’s “pro-abortion.”

Minor correction: “morning-after” changed to “abortion pill” after legions of hysterical leftists who believe that abortion is a “right” that should be subsidized by the public fisc messaged me. FWIW, the thrust of the posting (how can it be “choice” if there is no transparency regarding options) remains unchanged.