The Freedom Bulletin

I am glad that Virginia governor Bob McDonnell decided not to support a bill that would require all women to undergo ultrasounds in order to get an abortion, which would de facto require them to have a probe inserted into their private parts. (A typical ultrasound, involving a wand on your belly, would not work early in a pregnancy.) McDonnell said, “No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.” I agree with him completely. But it seems that he withdrew his support for the law not because he personally opposes it but because his advisors told him that it could violate the Fourth Amendment.

This raises an interesting point, and I agree that this requirement violates the Fourth Amendment. An ultrasound is, in a way, a search of a person’s body, and in this case an extremely invasive one, which people would be forced to undergo as a condition of exercising their right to abortion. I agree with a Boston Globe editorial stating that this law “would physically violate women,” as well as with people who have called it “state-sponsored rape” and who have said it would “force doctors to rape their patients”

Many people have the principled stance of opposing abortion and wanting to outlaw it, and although I do not agree with them, I respect their opinion. But to require an ultrasound at all, and especially to call this requirement a “women’s right to-know-bill,” is paternalistic and degrading. No bill is needed to ensure that people have the right to know the status of their fetus before having an abortion; I am sure that in this culture of excessive medical tests and procedures, most doctors would agree to do an ultrasound if asked. Requiring people to know something is far different from allowing them to know, and it is insulting to people’s rationality to assume that they cannot know what fetuses look like and that they have a heartbeat without personally seeing and hearing this. As Virginia democratic chair Brian Moran said, even if a law does not require a physically invasive ultrasound, it still ”forces an unnecessary medical procedure on Virginia women whether their doctors think they need it or not.” (As a side note, although I agree with his general point, I would add that it shouldn’t even be up to doctors what medical procedures someone needs; it should be up to the individual.)

To require a physically invasive procedure adds to what is already a bad idea. In addition to the fact that people who support liberty should be vehemently opposed to anyone being required to undergo a medical procedure, one would think that social conservatives, who are supposed to support modesty and the dignity of all people, would, if anything, want to discourage people from having their private parts examined and probed.

During debate on the bill, Virginia state senator Janet Howell proposed an amendment stating, ”Prior to prescribing medication for erectile dysfunction, a physician shall perform a digital rectal examination and a cardiac stress test.” I guess she was trying to prove a point, but I have to object any attempt to pass such an amendment, even if meant as satire. Requiring people, as a condition of anything, to undergo an invasive procedure involving the most private parts of the body, is horrible regardless of gender.

It is wrong whenever any government, organization, or person interferes with a person’s right to make their own decisions about their lives or their bodies. But it is especially horrific when a violation of someone’s liberty also involves taking away their innocence, integrity, or dignity. That is exactly what the transvaginal ultrasound requirement would do. It is also what the TSA does through its virtual strip searches and pat-downs, which Governor McDonnell (correctly) called ”probably over the line with regard to people’s concerns about privacy and their civil liberties.” It is what law enforcement does by forcing defendants to undergo strip searches and even more invasive searches when they have not been proven guilty of any wrongdoing. And it is also what doctors do when they require patients to undergo similarly invasive exams as a condition of any medication or treatment.

I am glad that so many people were outraged by the invasive ultrasound requirement. There should be just as much outrage at all violations of people’s liberty and dignity.

…and more about why birth control pills should not be free.

In the controversy about whether people who do not use birth control pills should be forced to pay for them, Republicans have generally been on the right side.

But, as Alex Koppelman at Slate points out, they are generally on the wrong side for supporting a Virginia law that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before being allowed to have an abortion. What makes this law particularly bad is that, “in many cases (most, in fact) that would mean having what’s called a ‘transvaginal ultrasound,’ in which a probe is inserted into a pregnant woman’s vagina to get the necessary image.” I believe that each person has the right to have an abortion either with or without looking at an image of the unborn baby. But for everyone who has an abortion to be forced to undergo such a degrading procedure is even worse. No one who believes in human dignity should support such a requirement which, in Koppelman’s words, ”clearly violates that woman’s liberty, not to mention her person.”

It would be a great thing for the Republican Party if they strove to become the party of liberty, not just on certain issues but on all issues.

It is right of them to view the debate about insurance coverage of birth control pills in terms of religious liberty, not in terms of medical and reproductive choice. After all, contrary to what the majority of people seem to think, no one is debating about whether people should have access to contraception. The debate is about whether people who use birth control pills should have to pick up some or all of the cost (either by actually paying the full cost or merely paying a co-pay or co-insurance), or whether they should be free, in which case the cost is evenly distributed among all of the people who purchase health insurance (which, since the Affordable Care Act requires essentially all people to purchase health insurance, equals essentially all people).

In this sense, and as many people of both parties fail to notice, the controversy is just as much an economic one as it is a “culture war.” Whether something should be paid for collectively or by the people who use it is an important issue to discuss. It is currently being discussed, for example, at hearings held by the MBTA to get the public’s input about whether the public transportation system’s budget woes should be solved by fare increases, service cuts, advertising revenue, tax increases, and/or cutbacks in other areas of the state budget.

For some reason, when a budget debate involves anything related to sex, instead of just public transportation, liberals try to frame the issue in terms of men oppressing women. Contraception is an issue that applies to both genders equally, and I object to it being treated as a women’s issue. It is women and not men who physically take birth control pills, but there are other methods of contraception, like vasectomies for example, that men physically do, and in any case, the ability to have sex without having a baby is equally important to men and women. It would really surprise me if, as has been implied, men would prefer a world with no birth control, where they would be unable to have sex without worrying about becoming a father against their will.

Additionally, I have personally encountered people who say that they are outraged and furious at the few politicians who dare to oppose the requirement that birth control pills be covered for free. This makes no sense. Unfortunately, on this particular issue, the liberal side is winning. With the Obama administration’s new policy, we went from a nation where insurance companies can choose whether or not to cover birth control pills, to one where they will be forced to cover them. Not only will birth control pills be covered, but they will be covered with no co-pay, something that cannot be said of medications that actually treat medical conditions, such as antibiotics, high blood pressure pills, asthma medications, or chemotherapy. This is, to say the least, a move in the direction that liberals would want. But as (most, but not all) liberals apparently find horrific, there are some people who disagree with this shift in policy and – gasp! – have the audacity to express their views. If liberals act as if they are being oppressed and trampled on when they are winning, I would hate to see how they react when they actually lose a policy battle.

The Republican Party should fight back against this inaccurate, illogical rhetoric by standing up for liberty on all fronts, including freedom of religion, freedom to make your own medical decisions, freedom to live your personal life the way you wish, and, as is forgotten by many people in the birth control debate, freedom to keep your own money and spend it the way you wish.

Matt Dubay is a glorious hero! This Michigan man believes that men should not have to pay child support if they did not want a baby. He is the first person I have ever heard of, besides myself, who believes this. The woman that took advantage of Dubay in order to get herself pregnant insisted on keeping her baby, even though he wanted it to be given up for adoption. The law required Dubay to pay money to this woman and to the baby merely because it shares his DNA. The concept of child support is ludicrous. It is analogous to forcing a person in Massachusetts to pay for an iPod that a random, unrelated person in California decides to buy. There is absolutely no moral connection between Dubay and the baby. Because he did not choose to have it, he is completely unrelated to it. In this case, the woman is solely responsible for producing the baby, and therefore for dealing with the baby, because she is the one that wanted it. Dubay has initiated a motion to overturn unjust child support laws in his state, and I support it with all my heart. This man is a hero for opposing injustice and state-sponsored theft.

Last night’s Academy Awards were actually more just than I anticipated! Of course, the nominations were way off base, since, among numerous other atrocities, neither “The Chronicles of Narnia” nor “Because of Winn-Dixie” was nominated for best picture. However, “Narnia” won an award in the Best Makeup category, one of three categories in which it was nominated! Congratulations to the makers of this outstanding movie. What’s more, “Brokeback Mountain” lost in the Best Picture category! For the full list of Oscar winners, go to Oscar.com.

In other news, Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota signed that state’s anti-abortion bill into law today. Although Rounds is a Republican, I strongly disagree with him on this issue! The bill bans all abortions, except for those that are necessary to save the woman’s life. This law is a violation of what is believe to be the inalienable right not to have a baby. It is an oppressive bill and should be abolished! I look forward to a Supreme Court showdown sometime in the future.

Sorry for not posting sooner; I have many things to say but have been too busy to say them until now. First of all, happy belated birthday to Benjamin Franklin, who turned 300 on Tuesday. Happy birthday as well to Robert E. Lee, the brave, brilliant, and charming Confederate commander-in-chief, who turns 199 years old today!

I did not watch the Golden Globes because “24″ was on at the same time, but I would like to congratulate Hugh Laurie of “House” for his win in the category of best actor in a television drama. The nominations for the BAFTA awards have been announced, and “The Chronicles of Narnia” has been nominated in three categories: costume design, visual effects, and makeup and hair. “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is nominated in the same categories, but “Narnia” is better (not by a huge amount, but by a substantial margin), and it is way better than almost any of the other movies that have been nomiated in any category. It’s too bad that “Narnia” wasn’t nominated for best picture or any other categories, but, knowing the bizarre tastes of film critics, I’m slightly surprised that it was nominated for these three categories. If you would like, click for the full list of nominees. Go Narnia!

Now for some Supreme Court commentary: the Court did well with its ruling in the doctor-assisted suicide case. People have a right to die if they want to, since dying isn’t morally wrong. Therefore, they have a right to pay someone to help them die, and doctors have a right to kill someone if that’s what the person told them to do. Why would you pay someone if they weren’t going to do what you told them? On this ruling I actually agree with the liberal judges! What a scary thought!

The Supreme Court justices were sort of wimpy on their ruling about the New Hampshire law that required parents to be notified before minors can get an abortion. This law should be struck down, as it is un-individualistic and imposes an undue burden on minors that do not want a baby. Yes, it was immoral of the minors to get pregnant in the first place (unless they were raped), but getting an abortion is the right thing to do if one is pregnant, since babies are yucky, and it is more moral not to have a baby than to have one. I support abortion because it is a way to mitigate an immoral situation. Another issue on which I side with the liberals! However, my father tells me that I support abortion for fascist reasons, and I like to think that he’s right!

Finally, did I mention Osama bin Laden’s new tape? On Al-Jazeera, Osama declared that he plans to attack the US, but is offering us a truce. It’s the first time he’s been heard from in over a year! I’ve always though he was alive. For the full story, go to CNN.