I am proud of our state Legislature and governor for passing the Reproductive Health Act because our laws needed to be updated since 1970 and it is the right thing to do.
Those representing my election districts opposed the law putting forth the standard “pro-life ‘ arguments, with Senator Helming adding that she felt the law did nothing for women who choose to have children.
The thing is, this has never been a discussion about being “pro-life.” A “pro-life” discussion involves ensuring that everyone has health care, education, a healthy environment, and ways to ensure that the lives we lead can prosper, which, as it happens, involves making choices available to people.
The law does not prescribe abortions. It does not say that women have to have abortions. It is not saying that there must be a loss of life.
The law is not “anti-life.” Quite the contrary.
This ensures that women have choice in their lives. It ensures that all of those choices can be made and keep them healthy and with dignity. This law actually protects life.
Assemblyman Manktelow expressed a wish that more people would choose to put a child up for adoption rather than choose abortion. This law does not prevent that choice and he is absolutely welcome to advocate that position as much as possible as a choice.
It is not a bad thing to advocate for a person to choose to bring their pregnancy to full term, and I believe that most women will choose to do so. However that advocacy can only be meaningful if their is a choice of options.
Not protecting the right to choose is not a “pro-life” position. It is “anti-choice.”
I applaud New York state for protecting the fundamental right to choose what happens with one’s life.