Women Right to Choose

Women's Issues

The right to choose

In her article "The Right to Choose? Really?," Kathryn Jean Lopez outlines a number of benefits to the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA) and denigrates the viewpoints of the pro-abortion opponents to ANDA. As Lopez notes at the start of her article, ANDA was enacted to enable hospitals and other healthcare providers to not have to perform abortion against their will. Lopez's main argument is that the bill is necessary because otherwise, healthcare providers have no choice but to provide abortions, even when abortions are antithetical to their sensibility. She argues that by preventing life, abortions are an affront to the purpose of the hospital. Accordingly, Lopez contends that ANDA actually promotes freedom since it allows hospitals the autonomy to choose whether or not to perform abortions.

By stating that ANDA endorses freedom, Lopez erroneously privileges the healthcare provider over the patients themselves. The purpose of the healthcare provider is to assist the population to the best of their ability; whether or not the hospital wishes to offer abortions should be irrelevant. The freedom of the people should always supersede that of the institution. Moreover, the decision by hospitals to not perform abortions constitutes an implicit act of discrimination against individuals who endeavor to have an abortion performed on them; the hospital would effectively be shunning such individuals in a time of great duress. Lopez denigrates the opposing viewpoint of Gloria Feldt, who states that the "bill discriminates against women who seek abortions," but Feldt is correct; ANDA would discriminate and for any healthcare provider to deny abortions is to engage in a human right violation (p. 39).

Another potential issue at stake with ANDA is the possibility that an individual may no longer have access to an abortion-granting facility. Someone may live in an exceedingly religious area in which the healthcare providers all decide en masse to no longer offer abortions; this would deny the person her basic freedom of choice. Lopez places great emphasis on the fact that an individual can still receive an abortion with ANDA in place, and that they simply have to visit a healthcare provider that provides the service. However, an individual may not have access to a provider that offers abortions, and such individuals would become marginalized by ANDA.

Additionally, Lopez weakens her argument by simplistically dismissing opposing viewpoints as "ha (ving) the monopoly on drama" (p. 40). She criticizes Stark for stating that the bill "should really be called the First Step Toward Outlawing Abortion Act" (p. 40). However, Lopez is even more "dramatic" than Stark, insulting Hilary Clinton with the back-handed compliment that "Common sense and fairness, evidently, do not always elude the junior senator from New York" (p. 43). Similarly, Lopez states, with regard to the pro-choice opponents to ANDA, that "It is desperation -- being on the losing end of the debate, watching the emanations and penumbras of a culture of life have more and more influence -- that makes them advocate less freedom for their opponents. Specifically, Lopez simplifies the viewpoints of the pro-life community to the point of distortion. The opponents of ANDA do not advocate less freedom for their opponents but rather more freedom -- the freedom of the individual to have the ability to receive an abortion if they so desire. Lopez implies that ANDA opponents wish harm upon the pro-ANDA camp, when in fact the pro-choice community advocates freedom for everyone. By resorting to personal insults, Lopez distracts from the central issues involved in ANDA.