×

Bill threatens reproductive freedom

The July 29 column written by Judy Ward on her sponsored Senate Bill 106 claims that her proposed Constitutional amendment “does not propose bans on abortions.”

I am awed by the amazing spin. If it does nothing, why propose it? If you have no right to something, isn’t that the same thing?

It implies that your request is subject to the whim of the person of whom it is made.

It is purposely unclear, and will have the same effect with medical providers, etc., refusing to provide services due to its purposeful obscurity.

We are already seeing the terrible effects of such legislation in other states.

I am running against Ward for the 30th District seat. I also am a former practicing attorney, counselor and educator. I am trained to read and understand legislation and its impact.

The language in the bill states: “The constitution does not grant the right to taxpayer-funded abortion or any other right relating to abortion.”

SB106 opens the door to a complete abortion ban. It puts in jeopardy any existing laws that protect abortion access.

It would preemptively authorize any legislative restriction to any “right relating to abortion” without limitation.

This is exactly the result Ward decried in her column. The chaos it will cause, will result in the filing of challenges in the courts as to interpretation. However, it will render the court powerless to correct inequities and injustices in any resulting fallout from legislative action. Any existing laws protecting access certainly will be challenged.

The courts most certainly would have to determine whether this vaguely worded amendment would invalidate “other rights related to abortion.”

Those rights remain unspecified. This could extend to health care options, such as contraception, or other reproductive procedures, including IVF.

SB106 states no funds are to be used for abortion.

Currently, the government does not fund any elective abortions.

However, abortions that are done to protect the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, are typically publicly funded through Medicaid in many states.

This is the subject of challenge in Pennsylvania as it disparately impacts the poor and minorities, threatening lives.

It is not an exaggeration to say that women will die as a result of this ill-conceived Constitutional amendment. If this makes you uncomfortable, it should.

Ward is proposing this change by constitutional amendment so the governor has no power to veto this proposed law.

Doug Mastriano will go as far as possible to strip all reproductive rights. If Josh Shapiro wins, he will be powerless to prevent the resultant damage, despite being in opposition to it.

Constitutional amendments are voted on in two sessions, advertised and placed on the ballot in the next election.

The timing of this is purposeful. Look for it in the May 2023 primary — where there is the lowest possible turnout in local races.

In May, the two parties nominate the candidates for each party.

Independents can’t vote for candidates of other parties until the election in November.

Third party individuals would have to show up for the sole purpose of voting on the amendments, which has historically resulted in amendments being passed.

Get the picture?

Ward’s amendment is a purposeful attempt to take away the executive and the judicial branches’ power to protect reproductive freedom.

It does not “give voice to the people” who do not want governmental intrusion into their most personal, painful decisions about their reproductive health.

It takes away our voice, so the few can impose theirs on us.

This is a bill that will take us back 50 years. It will cost lives. I cannot be silent.

Watch for this bill in the 2023 election and, for goodness sake, vote.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

COMMENTS

[vivafbcomment]

Starting at $4.39/week.

Subscribe Today