Colorado’s protective ‘bubble law’ near abortion clinics in jeopardy

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

PART 1. I do not respond to rebut incorrigible “liberal” sophist Bill Grant, but in hopes of giving my fellow Mesa County citizens, at least those who possess a measure of intellectual curiosity and honesty, some food for serious thought.
The abortion so-called “issue” should be easy to resolve politically, but because of the intellectually uncurious dead-ender zealots on both “sides” of the argument, it will take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution similar to the one I have proposed on my website at to get the job done.
Contrary to the usual (and boring) sophistic blather from the obfuscators, the issue has never been “women’s health”. It is at what point in his or her development, does a pre-born human child deserve the same “legal” rights and protections as all the rest of us post-birth human critters.
I believe that at least 90% of people are capable of seeing significant differences between terminating a zygote and the self-evident infanticide of so-called “partial birth” abortion.
The main intellectual problem is the tension inherent between each individual’s free-will-based moral autonomy and the coercion-based so-called “political authority” of the herd. That difficulty can be clarified by understanding that “authority” is in reality nothing more complicated than delegated will.
On the one hand humans have a survival need to choose their own behavior and be morally autonomous. On the opposite hand, the more ignorant, gullible and naïve among us delegate our wills to the dominant members of the stupid-human pecking order struggle who call themselves “government”. That’s a pity because I’ll guarantee you that most of us could do a LOT better job of running our own lives than to let “government” bosses tell us what to do.
I like to say that humans will never travel space in vehicles which exceed the speed of light unless we first solve the mystery of “government” by learning how to control our own personal behavior in sustainable ways. I sincerely believe that.
Human frailties aside for a moment, the main structural problem with the abortion issue is the mechanical differences between how the Creator’s free-will-based moral laws function and the way coercion-based so-called “postitive” human-made laws function.
God’s (or “Nature’s” for our “atheist” friends) voluntary-compliance cause-and-effect laws are love-based, free-will based, individualism-based and protect all individuals (1) equally, (2) separately, and (3) simultaneously, in other words, the so-called “Golden Rule” which has been wisely paraphrased as “don’t do to anyone else that which you wouldn’t want done to you.” Even atheists should be able to live with that concept, which some of them like to call “The Non-Aggression Principle”, since the mathematics of the equation are pragmatically the same for atheist and Christian alike, regardless of the nomenclature.

PART 2. In direct polar contrast, humankind’s deception-based, fear-based, coercion-based and monopoly-on-violence-based laws by definition and necessity inevitably pit the “legal” rights of one individual or group against the “legal” rights of another individual or group in the following dialectic perfectly exemplified by the abortion “issue”:  the child’s right to life (thesis) versus the mother’s right to privacy (antithesis). Under this paradigm, after spending huge amounts of money on lawyers for going into their courts, fraudulently called “the people’s courts”, a phony illusion (e.g. Roe v. Wade) of genuine resolution and harmony is arrived at (synthesis). This subtle and complex scam is known as the Hegelian dialectic, a means by which clever individuals create and manage social crises for the purpose of gaining power and money to benefit themselves.
So long as we insist on trying to solve the abortion so-called “issue” by using coercion-based human law, that necessarily means involving the so-called “political” processes.  And we must always remember, “politics” = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why “politics” = manipulation. That is why deception = the so-called “art” of politics. That is also why “politician” = professional deceiver, and why “political” = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the “other guy’s” pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership. But I digress.

PART 3. So, in a nutshell, the constitutional amendment I propose (see at would give the mother’s right to privacy priority over the child’s right to life ONLY during the first trimester. In other words, any woman who wants to get an abortion could do it legally in the first trimester ONLY. After that, depending on the state, second trimester abortions might be illegal. Since we are necessarily dealing with the moral and intellectual limitations of inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One-Ring “government”, I would leave second trimester abortions to the “political” judgment of the various state legislatures. During the third trimester, the life of the child would be given priority over the privacy of the mother except to save the life of the mother.
The reason an amendment is necessary is because the U.S. Supreme Court has already demonstrated it’s moral and intellectual unworthiness by “slippery sloping” the first trimester abortions protected by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) into partial birth abortions in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
I believe that an overwhelming and permanently decisive majority of people would support such an amendment. The only problem I can foresee would be that the dead-enders wouldn’t exactly get their spoiled-brat ways, so they would never be satisfied with anything short of elimination of the “other side”. But then that’s the inherent nature of human “politics”, isn’t it?
I say all this as a “pro-lifer” whose personal “religion” (“world view” for our atheist friends) is that abortion is the moral equal of murder, but one who also intellectually understands the extreme limitations of human “law” and “politics”. I also understand the utterly hopeless folly of believing that all human ills can be somehow magically cured by coercion-based legislation. They can’t. As Leo Tolstoy so eloquently pointed out in “The Kingdom of God Is Within You”, the solutions must come from within each individual.
In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language”, George Orwell said, “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.”
As long as there is money to be made from the abortion issue, the dead-enders and those who profit from the controversy will strive to keep it alive and festering. That is all the more reason why we should not listen to the sophistic likes of Bill Grant and his intellectually uncurious ilk. They offer no solutions, only wannabe-clever “political” demonization of the Other. And that’s really kind of sad.

PART 4. If such an amendment as I propose were adopted and implemented, I fail to see how that would threaten Colorado’s “bubble” of protection around legal abortion seekers.
I don’t know how Colorado’s “bubble” got to be 8 feet, as opposed to, say, 10 feet or 6 feet, but to me it seems adequate for the purposes of preserving everybody’s 1st Amendment rights.
The point is that when a woman is walking up the sidewalk into an abortion clinic – the intellectually inaccurate term “health care facility” is a propaganda-motivated euphemism at best—it should not be permissible for a person or persons to physically bar her way. In my opinion, it is adequate for 1st Amendment purposes that pro-life activists can stand off to the side of the sidewalk and say what they have to say in non-profane, non-fighting-words language.
If such an amendment as I propose were implemented, it would no longer be necessary (or effective) for sophists to constantly being trying to “push the envelope” for political mileage with their faux-benign rhetoric and phony “concerns” à la Bill Grant and his self-perceived shaman-like gift for being able to discern what exactly is “the will of the people”. Wouldn’t that be a blessing?!
The subject of “abortion” – that is the subject of determining the stage of physical development where a human being should be accorded full and equal protection of law—is already hard enough without trying to make it harder just to score sophomoric “political” points.

Shorter John Wilkenson: abortion should only be a right for the first trimester and liberals are dumb.

You’re welcome.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy