“The Reproductive Health Act is a historic victory for New Yorkers and for our progressive values,” (Cuomo, New York governor, in One World Trade Center lit pink in celebration of New York abortion law, The Washington Times, January 23, 2019).[1]
“Just beside Freedom Tower, two pools mark the spot of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Around each of them are inscribed the names of every person murdered that day, and beside the names of eleven of those women the carved stone says, “and her unborn child.” Beneath Cuomo’s shrine to abortion on demand, the real story is written: These are human lives” (Alexandra Desanctis, The Indefensible Morality of Andrew Cuomo, National Review, January 26, 2019).[2]
The New Law
According to the Washington Times, this new health act, “decriminalizes abortion and drops most of the state’s previous restrictions on abortions after 24 weeks. It also allows midwives and nurse practitioners to perform abortions.” [3] In other words, there is no time limit to abortions.
Moreover, there are not any restrictions to limit the procedure as long as the mother has consented to it. According to the new Reproductive Health Act, “Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, pursuant to this article.” [4] Also, the act states that “The state shall not discriminate against, deny, or interfere with the exercise of the rights set forth in this section in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services or information.” [5] I am not a lawyer, but the wording is clear. I do not see any restrictions at all outside of the mother’s consent.
In short, we have a law that decriminalizes abortions, extends the authority of aborting an unborn baby to other health professionals, places the life of the child solely under the mercy of the mother and a stranger professional, and subdues the country's resources to serve the desires of the woman.
The Significance of the Timing and the context of the New Law
Many news articles have pointed out that “On the 46th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, New York state passed a law to protect women's access to abortion if the historic case is overturned.” [6] It won’t be an overstatement to point out that this is not a coincidence. This has historical roots are sprouting now. Those who support the law see themselves as performing a duty to carry on a mission that started in the legal circles with Roe V. Wade. They genuinely believe they are fighting for something good. But, is it good? What is good? How do we know it? If it is good, why such a divide? Whose good are we defending? Why is the good of the mother's convenience superior to an unborn baby’s most basic good, life? These are some questions that should be running in your head as you encounter similar news.
Also, some have pointed out how this law came in response to the U.S. federal government’ s attempt to limit abortions. The New York governor stated that “In the face of a federal government intent on rolling back Roe v. Wade and women’s reproductive rights, I promised that we would enact this critical legislation within the first 30 days of the new session — and we got it done.” [7] In a tone filled with a prideful sense of achievement, the governor declared a victory over what he saw as an oppressive trend of the US government towards women’s reproductive rights. I get the sense that he sees what he did as an act of reformation. Yet again, is it? What is the measure of legal and moral reformation versus decadence? Whose measure do we use? How come we cannot meet on a common-ground? What is a common-ground in such matters? Is it that blurry that the institutions of the same country are using their influence to stand in opposition to one another while firmly believing that both are absolutely right?
Finally, it was shocking to me that the governor chose the world trade center to be lit up in pink. The last time the world trade center was lit up in a significant sense was by a bunch of terrorists killing innocent lives for distorted beliefs. Mourning spread in the US land and rightfully so. It is disheartening that an act leading to the destruction of a multitude innocent human life is in effect. It is legal just as the terrorist attack was considered legal in the eyes of the terrorists, a command given not by a human government, but God Himself. Allowing late-term abortions was celebrated just as many extremist Muslims celebrate the killing of God's enemies.
Why would one be acceptable, and the other not? Who has the right authority to delegate the killing of an innocent human if ever? Is legal authority the ultimate measure? Or, is there a higher standard of morality? Does it matter if we are lighting up the New York Trade center in pink or in a fire? I guess the former is cuter and less messy.
I don’t mean to appeal to or inflame emotions by lining up the two events in comparison. I truly hope that the comparison does not take you to a defensive mode. This is not my intention. However, I do intend to bring up the issue of perspective, typically yet arbitrarily used to justify and condemn acts that are inherently the same. Perhaps, it will make you seriously reconsider if morality is just a matter of the perspective of those who happened to be in power. Or, does right and wrong exist independently of our views, minds, cultures, religions, and beliefs? It may be helpful to you to review my posts on worldviews at this point.
Conclusion
In this post, I offered an overview of this new law. I also posed some reflection questions aiming that they would refocus our distracted attention to the real core of such cultural battles. After all, you might discover that an unborn baby is really a person just like a shadow of a child is of a real one. Perhaps, the only difference is that the former two are simply out of sight.
Footnotes:
[1] Jessica Chasmar, “One World Trade Center lit pink in celebration of New York abortion law,” Washington Times, Jan 23, 2019, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/23/one-world-trade-center-lit-pink-celebration-new-yo/.
[2] Alexandra DeSanctis, “The Indefensible Morality of Andrew Cuomo,” National Review, January 26, 2019, https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/andrew-cuomo-new-york-abortion-law/.
[3]Jessica Chasmar, “One World Trade Center lit pink in celebration of New York abortion law,” Washington Times, Jan 23, 2019, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/23/one-world-trade-center-lit-pink-celebration-new-yo/.
[4] See articles 36-38 in “Bill no.: S00240,” New York State Assembly, January 9, 2019, https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=S00240&term=2019&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Committee%26nbspVotes=Y&Floor%26nbspVotes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y.
[5] See articles 29-41 in “Bill no.: S00240,” New York State Assembly, January 9, 2019, https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=S00240&term=2019&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Committee%26nbspVotes=Y&Floor%26nbspVotes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y.
[6] Tony Marco, “New York Puts in Measures to Protect Access to Abortion Even If Roe v. Wade Is Overturned,” CNN, January 23, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/health/new-york-abortion-measures-trnd/index.html.
[7] Jessica Chasmar, “One World Trade Center lit pink in celebration of New York abortion law,” Washington Times, Jan 23, 2019, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/23/one-world-trade-center-lit-pink-celebration-new-yo/.