One Woman's View
Contributing writer
Two bills being debated in the Kansas Legislature have been receiving a lot of publicity and provoking some controversy. One would ban protests near the site of a funeral. The other, known as Alexa's law, would make the murder of an unborn child a homicide. The recent murder of a 14-year-old pregnant girl raised the issue of whether the killing of her fetus was a separate crime.
Both of these bills involve some rather complicated Constitutional and ethical issues. The group which has been picketing outside of churches during funerals claims their freedom of speech would be infringed by the prohibition of such protests. I am normally very sensitive to threats to anybody's freedom of speech. For example, I have always opposed laws to prohibit the destruction of the United States flag as a protest, because I believe the freedoms for which that flag stands are much more important than a piece of cloth, however respected it should be. In this case, however, I favor banning the protests.
There is an old saying that my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. For me the main consideration in legal and moral questions is whether or not someone else is being hurt. A grieving family should have the right to bury their dead in as much privacy as they desire. Free speech means a citizen has a perfect right to speak out publicly (including the right to demonstrate or picket) on any issue, no matter how many people might disagree. However, he does not necessarily have the right to stage such a protest anywhere he chooses. I doubt such a demonstration in the middle of I-70 would go on unchecked for very long. Let them take their demonstration down the street.
Incidentally, it seems ironic and a bit upsetting to me that there was very little public outrage against Fred Phelps and his group of lunatics as long as they were only picketing the funerals of homosexuals. As soon as they began protesting at the funerals of military personnel many people were up in arms, and the legislature started trying to find a way to stop him. At least, if this bill passes, all families will be protected against this kind of outrageous intrusion on a very private and traumatic moment.
As for Alexa's law, I am totally in favor of it also. I did not know we did not have such a law in Kansas. I know that many states do. In a much publicized case in California, a man who killed his pregnant wife was charged with two counts of murder. I can see why this bill is upsetting to the pro-abortion forces. Although they do not want to appear heartless about the taking of innocent life, they are afraid of losing ground in the abortion debate.
I believe that an innocent unborn child deserves protection under the law, no matter who threatens its life. We seem to be trying to say that if any outsider takes the life of an unborn child, it is a human being. If the child's mother in collusion with an abortionist kills the same child, it is not a person, but a fetus. No wonder this illogical position makes people uncomfortable. Perhaps the day will come when we are once again ready to protect innocent lives from all threats. In the meantime, this law would be a small step in the right direction.
Legislatures and courts often get tangled up in a welter of competing rights, and the Constitution cannot always differentiate clearly among them. Often we could cut the Gordian knot by applying a bit of common sense, which probably could be more accurately described as uncommon sense. For me the question of whether innocent lives should be protected from slaughter and grieving families from callous onslaughts against their privacy is a no-brainer. I hope the legislature takes the common sense approach.
