So according to Pres. Biden, NO Constitutional right is unrestricted:
“But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…,” April 8, 2021.
No amendment is absolute. Those are his words.
On that basis, he and a slew of others have proposed what THEY consider to be “common sense” limitations on the Constitutionally protected (NOT GRANTED - that’s a critical distinction) Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (some of these are already law, others have been proposed):
*No firearms purchase on demand, without limitations
*Universal background checks
*Emergency protection orders (aka “red flag” laws)
*Minimum purchase age 21
*Licenses required to purchase/own/carry firearms
*Mandatory training as a prerequisite to purchase/own/carry a firearm
*Track multiple handgun purchases
*Register handguns and other specified weapons with the government
*Limitations or outright bans on entire classes of firearms
*Limitations or outright bans on specific accessories
*Psychological assessment
*Require all transfers to be made by federal firearms licensees
These are just SOME of the limitations that have either been proposed or already exist at the federal level; they don’t take into account the limitations implemented by the states or even at the local level. And these limitations affect a right that is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the Constitution.
Ok. So what?
The president said NO amendment is absolute. Those are his words.
We’ll set aside for the moment that the Constitution doesn’t actually EXPLICITLY give/protect a right to abortion; that “right” was created out of thin air by SCOTUS. But for the sake of argument, I will stipulate some sort of Constitutional “right” to abortion.
So let’s consider what access to abortion would look like if we applied the same “common sense”, “reasonable” limitations to abortion.
Before we do that, let’s consider why the anti-Second Amendment lobby feels such measures are even necessary.
39,700.
That’s the number of deaths attributed to “gun violence” last year. Bear in mind that approximately 66% of those are suicides, but 39,700 deaths is considered reason to limit our Second Amendment rights. That number, 39,000, per the federal government, has remained steady (with only minor fluctuations) for the last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. This, then, accounts for 975,000 deaths during that time period.
Terrible?
Absolutely.
But let’s now contrast that to the number of abortions that have occurred in that same 25 year period.
More than sixty-four MILLION abortions have been performed since being legalized in 1972, averaging nearly 1.3 million per year.
That’s 32.5 million abortions for the last 25 years.
And those are just the SURGICAL abortions. That number does not take MEDICINAL abortions into account.
If 975,000 deaths over 25 years is reason enough to limit an explicit Constitutional right, then 32.5 million abortions should certainly be reason to place limitations on an inferred Constitutional “right.”
So what would that look like if we placed the same kinds of “common sense” limitations on the “right” to abortion?
First, there would be no unlimited, on-demand abortion - yet, that is EXACTLY the kind of access demanded by the abortion lobby and the Biden administration.
Any woman wanting an abortion would have to be at least 21 years old (that’s the new magic age many in the federal government want to impose on ALL firearms purchases; some states already do that).
She would be required to attend training delivered by a licensed doctor (not a PA or nurses) detailing what actually happens during an abortion and the long term affects on her body, including medical imagery of her pre-born child (the equivalent of mandatory firearms purchase/carry training) before EVERY abortion (background checks are run by federal firearms licensees before EVERY firearm purchase).
She would have to submit to psychological testing, after which she would receive a permit/license to have an abortion if she is deemed psychologically fit to receive one and does not pose a danger to herself or others (requirement to receive a license to purchase/own/carry).
She would have to wait a minimum of 10 days before having an abortion in order to reconsider her choice.
Her abortion would have to be performed at a licensed hospital by a surgeon (the equivalent of requiring all firearms transactions to be facilitated by a federal firearms licensee at their registered and licensed place of business.)
She would need to register her abortions with health departments (mandatory firearms registration).
Family members and the baby’s father would have the legal right to petition a judge to intervene to stop the procedure (red flag laws).
Certain classes of surgical abortion procedures could be limited or banned altogether (the equivalent of limiting/banning entire classes of firearms)
Over the counter abortifacients could he limited or banned altogether (think limiting/banning firearms accessories, especially those that make using the firearm easier or more effective).
This is all considered to be “common sense” to prevent future “gun violence” deaths. Our Second Amendment rights are limited.
But, contrary to what the president claimed about “reasonable limitations“ on that right, he believes that the “right” to abortion should be completely un-infringed/unlimited.
Which is it? If “…no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…”, then the “right” to abortion is likewise subject to limitations.
