.png)
Bill Description
Notes
The decision from Judge Owens in Johnson et al v. State of Wyoming et al, proceeds on the basis that only the mother has health care rights. That is wrong. The child too has health care rights. Specifically, the child has the right not to have his or her life terminated.
Subsection 3 of Article 1, Section 38 in the Wyoming Constitution allows the Legislature to impose necessary restrictions on the rights granted under the constitutional provision. Exercising its constitutional right, the Legislature can, and should, define when a person becomes a person such that the person is entitled to protection and thereby protecting the person from harm.
It is very obvious to all that the
following physical and biological clinical and scientific markers define personhood for all living
humans:
- A working heart
- A working respiratory system
- A central nervous system
- A working brain
- A skeletal system
- Jointed or muscled appendages
- Organ function
While this is by no means an exhaustive list, it alone provides a framework for us to accept that if these markers do exist in a single entity, it must be living. If not, we would have to redefine and accept a natural person as being a mixture of these things or even none of these things at all. Since the latter would be completely nonsensical at best, we are only left with the conclusion that if society and its laws are to meaningfully protect the personhood of all individuals, then these physical and biological markers must be included in that which is protected.
With this perspective and understanding, we also have an obligation to make sure no parent, guardian, or legal representative of a natural person may unwillingly take these biological and physical markers away from those they are legally obligated to protect. This is merely a continuation of the obligation society has to prevent a stranger from unwillingly taking them away from another person. The perpetrator is immaterial if the principle stands. And the principle clearly stands.
So the burden of proof should fall on those that want to justify the act of aborting an unborn child. Where do they draw their authority from to take away any of these obvious physical and biological markers of a natural person? Since society has still not scientifically defined and agreed upon when an embryo becomes alive, the burden needs to be on those seeking an abortion as to where the authority exists to take away the things that make us natural persons in the first place. And this would include defining where this authority comes from and what are its limits. For unless this authority can be clearly established, society would have to allow one individual to stop the heart of a 37 year old woman in the same way someone would be allowed to stop the heart of an 8 week old unborn child. Clearly this position is untenable.
HB250 seeks to establish a foundation for defending the personhood of all individuals equally by codifying the clinical physical and biological markers that are already universally accepted as defining a natural person. Any attempted deviations by those desiring to negatively encroach on the markers of one natural person must be defended against for the mutual benefit of all natural persons. For defending these interests are naturally adjoined.
Building off of this scientific understanding of a natural person, we must take the logical next step of applying this understanding to health care. Health care is generally accepted as meaning the efforts made to maintain, restore, or promote someone's physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially when performed by trained and licensed professionals.
Therefore it is beyond reasonable to establish that efforts made to obstruct, destroy or degrade someone's physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially when performed by trained and licensed professionals is not health care. Clearly this is the antithesis of health care.
It is scientifically validated that the following individual biological and physical markers are
prominent factors in defining the overall health of a natural person.
- Heart health
- Respiratory system health
- Central nervous system health
- Brain health
- Skeletal system health
- Jointed or muscled appendage health
- Organ function
Any act in any context that would obstruct, destroy or degrade any of these markers cannot be considered health care by definition but rather health harm. Are their exceptions? We find two natural exceptions:
-
(1) When there is a medically documented life-saving necessity to save the life of a pregnant woman causing her to be in a position where they are not physically able to meet the responsibility of parenthood for reasons beyond their control.
-
(2) When a guardian or legal representative has been presented with a recommendation that the discontinuation of medical treatment or care for someone they are responsible for when there is no chance of meaningful recovery. In this case, the act does not cause additional harm to the natural person as the existing treatment is no longer maintaining, restoring, or promoting their health.