My point is simple… what someone believes about abortion and for what reason does not matter. Attributing religion and racism as motives to those opposed to abortion is similar to emphasizing that one of the founders of Planned Parenthood was an avowed racist who believed in eugenics and therefore all pro choice advocates are racists.

I know many pro life supporters who see pro choice supporters as supporting eugenics and racism. Many racists support abortion knowing that African American women are having a disproportionate number of abortions compared to other races. But I think they represent a minority of pro choice advocates. In a similar manner, most extreme feminists are pro choice, but most pro choice advocates are not extreme feminists (in fact, the mix of pro choice supporters is pretty even between men and women suggesting it is not a feminist issue, no matter how much the media and politicians have attempted to paint it as one).

And so I continue to oppose attempts to label the abortion issue as racist by both sides or extreme feminist or religious nuts or any other such label designed to undermine the basis for a rationale decision based on civil liberties. The Roe v Wade case introduced one of the most prevailing concepts in law today… that idea that humans are not the legal equivalent of “persons”. Humans are not protected by our Constitution, only “persons” are. And so our laws have evolved into a complex matrix designed to distinguish between the two.

How important is that concept, the whole Citizens United case was based on the idea that corporations are “persons”. The opposition’s famous rallying cry was corporations don’t eat, shit, or make love, so they are not “persons”. But the court made clear as in the Roe v Wade case, that not all humans are persons and by extension not all persons are human. Think about how powerful that distinction is.

The Citizens United case hinged on the common law precedent that only “persons” can be taxed and sued and since we can tax and sue corporations, they have certain civil liberties including Freedom of Speech which is the basis for defending their right to make political contributions. And so the abortion issue is closely tied to the issue of corporations making political contributions. If all humans were persons and only humans were persons, then abortion would be uniformly illegal unless the woman’s life was at risk and corporations could not make political contributions, or be taxed or be sued (in theory, you could tax the owners of corporations and sue the owners like in a partnership but not the corporation).

So as America debates the abortion issue rather than firing up both sides with accusations of trying to impose religion or acting in a racist manner, those of us who want to see the issue resolved in a manner consistent with our laws and Constitution, must use every attempt to dispel “labeling” and refocus people to the ramifications of decisions on abortion to many other areas involving civil liberties and the ability of the court or Congress to alter what has been argued since our founding as a nation as “unalienable rights”.

And so we need to reduce the abortion to a single decision. At what point in a human’s development to they attain their citizenship rights? That is the issue and the decision has broad and sweeping ramifications if the logic behind the decision is not rational but instead is based on emotional, religious, racial, feminist, or any other basis than legal logic.