Women's Issues The right to choose

In her article "The Right to Choose? Really?," Kathryn Jean Lopez outlines a number of benefits to the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA) and denigrates the viewpoints of the pro-abortion opponents to ANDA. As Lopez notes at the start of her article, ANDA was enacted to enable hospitals and other healthcare providers to not have to perform abortion against their will. Lopez's main argument is that the bill is necessary because otherwise, healthcare providers have no choice but to provide abortions, even when abortions are antithetical to their sensibility. She argues that by preventing life, abortions are an affront to the purpose of the hospital. Accordingly, Lopez contends that ANDA actually promotes freedom since it allows hospitals the autonomy to choose whether or not to perform abortions.

By stating that ANDA endorses freedom, Lopez erroneously privileges the healthcare provider over the patients themselves. The purpose of the healthcare...

The freedom of the people should always supersede that of the institution. Moreover, the decision by hospitals to not perform abortions constitutes an implicit act of discrimination against individuals who endeavor to have an abortion performed on them; the hospital would effectively be shunning such individuals in a time of great duress. Lopez denigrates the opposing viewpoint of Gloria Feldt, who states that the "bill discriminates against women who seek abortions," but Feldt is correct; ANDA would discriminate and for any healthcare provider to deny abortions is to engage in a human right violation (p. 39).
Another potential issue at stake with ANDA is the possibility that an individual may no longer have access to an abortion-granting facility. Someone may live in an exceedingly religious area in which the healthcare providers all decide en masse to no longer offer abortions; this would deny the person her basic freedom of choice. Lopez places great emphasis on the fact that an individual can still…