I’ve never made any secret of the fact that I am pro-life when it comes to the issue of abortion. And while I might not be as absolutist as others on the issue, I do think that the state ought to be able to limit or prohibit late-term abortions.

That said, the generally libertarian side of my conservative political philosophy takes great offense at what amounted to the court-ordered imprisonment of a woman to prevent her from engaging in legal activities that the doctor believed would endanger her child.

Samantha Burton wanted to leave the hospital. Her doctor strongly disagreed, enough to go to court to keep her there.

She smoked cigarettes during the first six months of her pregnancy and was admitted on a false alarm of premature labor. Her doctor argued she was risking a miscarriage if she didn't quit smoking immediately and stay on bed rest in the hospital, and a judge agreed.

Three days after the judge ordered her not to leave the hospital, Burton delivered a stillborn fetus by cesarian-section.

Whoa! Under the currently existing rulings of the US Supreme Court, Burton had the right to terminate her pregnancy. What’s more, Burton had an absolute right to travel where she chose to seek medical treatment in another state where a late term abortion might be performed. No state could order her held in custody to prevent her from engaging in that legal (if morally reprehensible) activity in another state.

So if Burton had a legal right to kill this child via abortion, on what possible grounds does a doctor and a judge order her imprisoned against her will until she delivers her child so as to prevent her from engaging in other legal behaviors that may or may not harm her unborn child?

Frankly, I’m with the ACLU on this one.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Diana Kasdan said if the ruling stands it could lead to the state virtually taking over the lives of pregnant women, including telling them what they should or should not eat and drink and what medications they must take.

"It would be a horrible precedent," Kasdan said.

Indeed, this plays into every feminist fantasy of government control of pregnant women.

And one more thing – if government force someone to get medical treatment not of their choosing now, just imagine what things will look like if something resembling ObamaCare gets enacted. With the government paying the bills and determining what treatments you are allowed, it is only one more step to government telling you what treatments you are required to accept because it has determined that such treatment benefits society at large.

And let’s not forget – this is not a case of a plague carrier being subjected to quarantine. This is government dictating to someone with a non-contagious condition when there is a bona fide difference of opinion even among medical professionals as to the proper course of treatment. Whatever happened to patient’s rights when it comes to directing their own medical care? Or the unalienable right to liberty that is at the heart of our founding documents?

Interesting commentary from a different perspective over at Founding Bloggers.