Disconnect on 'medical freedom' issue

Anyone see a disconnect between saying it’s your right to opt out of a vaccination or decline wearing a mask, but then require a 13-year-old who becomes pregnant after being sexually assaulted by a family member, to carry that pregnancy? Disconnect?

Scott Herndon stated in the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting, 2023, that “It’s an opportunity to have a child in those terrible circumstances.” I recall a comment about how a child could heal when she delivers the baby. You heard that right — “an opportunity to heal.”

If Ms. Neff believes bodily autonomy is sacred, let her say that a 13-year-old has bodily autonomy also. Is a right to work “where you’re not forced to have poisons injected into your body compromising your health” the same as carrying a pregnancy, being high risk for surgical birth — while 13 may be old enough to conceive — she certainly may not be mature enough to have a vaginal birth. Having a medical complication or a premature child is a real scenario. Not to mention the trauma placed on the child — yes, she’s still a child. Adoption? Give it up. Most teens who become pregnant keep the baby. Now we have a child raising a child. The 13-year-old just lost her childhood, a choice she was not allowed to make.

Vote for Jim Woodward, he understands decisions about “medical freedom” are complicated. If Ms. Neff can’t say a 13-year-old keeps hers, then "medical freedom" isn't a principle, it's a costume.

CYNTHIA DALSING

Sandpoint