Anti-Man is not Pro-Woman

Right on the heels of hearing about a foolish conservative petition to take Bill Maher off the air, I have learned that there is a "trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men's health". In other words, leftists opposed to restrictions on abortion are proposing bad legislation of their own just to send a message:

Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if [Ohio] state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

Turner has proposed this legislation in response to a so-called "heartbeat bill" that would ban abortions whenever there is a fetal heartbeat. She is correct that, as a health law, her bill is analogous to the heartbeat bill, but that fact doesn't make what she is doing an effective way of promoting her own position. This is because the real problem with the heartbeat law is that only actual (not potential) human beings have rights, and that using mere possession of a heartbeat to define what constitutes a human life is wrong. Violating the rights of even more individuals is not a way to protect the rights of anyone, and failing to even broach the subject of individual rights when a defense of same is urgently needed (and essential) to one's cause is to forfeit the fight.

Turner and her ilk should concentrate on making cogent, pro-individual rights arguments for women's reproductive rights, rather than proposing legislation that, in today's morass of confused political philosophy, actually stands a good chance of being passed -- on top of strongly resembling other legislation already on the books that ought to be repealed, such as anti-abortion legislation and ObamaCare.

To re-cast a recent comment about American bishops suddenly being angry about the contraceptive/abortion implications of ObamaCare: "If women Democrats had previously opposed ObamaCare and supported free market health care reforms on principle, they would now have the moral high ground to argue for reproductive freedom." That is, if Turner wants the state's hands off her body, she should argue against them being on anyone's body.

-- CAV