But it is the abortion rights opponents who seem most irked at Mr. Blouin, once a champion for their efforts. “He’s a hypocrite,” said Kim Lehman, executive director of the Iowa Right to Life Committee. “He says he’s pro-life, and yet what he’s really saying is that he is personally pro-life but would take no action that’s pro-life. He’s the worst kind of so-called pro-life. I don’t think he has a right to call himself pro-life.”
Oh my GOD lady, could you be missing the point any more if you tried. I have no idea who this Mr. Blouin is beyond the content of this article, but from what you’ve said there he seems to be the definition of a responsible lawmaker. He has his own beliefs, but will not use the legal system to impose them on an entire state (if he even had that power to begin with). What kind of wholesome pro-life action should he be taking? Harrassing young women, threatening doctors, blowing up clinics, that kind of thing?
The South Dakota change in the law relating to abortion absolutely sickened me when I first heard of it, and time hasn’t really softened the blow. This is probably my limited understanding of US Federal Law here, but isn’t this in some way a contravention of full faith and credit? I accept that the states have rights, and that there will inevitably be variances in legislation due to the different political climates, but how can they stop access in one state when it remains in the state next door? Isn’t that somehow a curtailing of your rights as a citizen of the country? I know the people who support that law will be happier to see it go nationwide, but I honestly think there’s a time when you’re fifty states, but there are also times when you’re just one nation. It’s the same with the EU, you can’t pass laws in one country that would prejudice the citizens of another member state.
I suppose it doesn’t help that I basically just don’t understand the pro-life movement to begin with.