LB814, recently introduced in the Legislature, would further reduce the right of a woman to have control over her own body by removing one option for ending a pregnancy, a procedure called dilation and evacuation done during the second trimester.

Legislation like this puts power in the hands of mostly middle-aged white men (and a few women), most of whom are financially comfortable and don’t have to worry about their next meal. Their cause is labeled “right to life” and is motivated by religion, politics or both, but not medicine.

In 1964, we were a young married couple returning to Lincoln to start careers and raise a family. Brenda became pregnant. The thrill of our first child was soon dashed when we discovered that Brenda had contracted German measles from a student during her first trimester, while teaching first grade in a local elementary school.

Medical literature stated that a high percentage of births by mothers infected by rubella resulted in seriously and permanently disabled children. We were advised at the time by a knowledgeable physician to have the pregnancy terminated. But since this happened eight years before Roe v. Wade, this procedure was illegal in Nebraska.

However, Brenda came from Ohio, and a respected Cleveland hospital regularly performed operations to terminate pregnancies during the first trimester, if a physician provided a medical opinion that the pregnancy would negatively affect the physical or mental health of the mother.

We were fortunate that we could afford the cost of the trip and procedure. We didn’t consult clergy, politicians or soothsayers because we thought this was a health matter, not a political or religious matter. We proceeded forward, with a heavy heart, as we were medically advised to do and traveled to Cleveland.

Even if the procedure were banned in Nebraska, those who could afford it simply hopped on an airplane and flew to a state where the procedure was legal -- and they still would.

The young women not lucky enough to have the resources to travel were forced to give birth to children they did not want to bear. Meanwhile, anti-abortion proponents bore none of the immediate costs, emotional or financial.

In the end, though, everyone pays, because, in many cases, these mothers and families end up on welfare. And these same anti-abortionists will complain about higher taxes.

Add to this the fact that those who are concerned about the sanctity of life of fetuses are often in favor of the death penalty, notwithstanding that innocent people have been, and no doubt will continue to be, executed. And many health care providers have been killed for providing abortions. There is something wrong with this picture.

The fervor of the anti-abortion movement is often driven by a strong religious passion. Our Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …”

Seems pretty straightforward. For those who do not want to have abortions, the First Amendment goes on to say, “… or prohibit the free exercise thereof.”

Perhaps your religion prohibits having abortions or watching football games or whatever. Fine, as long as you do not force your beliefs on those who do not share them. But this simple solution does not seem to satisfy the pro-life community. They are intent on codifying their religious beliefs into law, forcing others who do not share the same beliefs into following their religious ideas.

Lest not we forget, the early supporters of slavery believed the Bible thought that it was perfectly proper for one human to own another. It was God’s will that Africans be slaves, they said. About 600,000 people died in the Civil War to end that awful idea. It is no accident that the first 11 words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights deal with religion.

A further imposition of religion on a woman's rights, LB814 should not get out of committee.