Non-Coercion of Abortion Law?

In my own private Idaho a House Committee passed a bill making it a crime to "violently coerce a woman into getting an abortion" (Idaho Statesman.com).

The newly proposed non-coercion bill is to prevent the use or threat of physical harm to provoke a woman into having an abortion she otherwise might not have. I'm good with that.

The rub is that this is an unnecessary micro-law, it covers too little...of what is already against the law. So we outlaw coercion to get an abortion, but it is okay to coerce a woman to get a tattoo, or body piercing, or laser eye surgery or to get pregnant in the first place? I think not.

The liberty guaranteed by our Constitution and countless other laws cover this already. But if we want a new law how about the following? "An emancipated and free person cannot be coerced by use or threat of force to do any damned thing." Now there's a law that makes sense. Men and women alike, regardless of the issue at hand can make their life choices and be free to do so. I like it.

Whenever we pass these specialty one-problem laws they invariable result in expensive lawsuits and are often overturned. All we need is better thinking on the front end, and a conservative reticence to making everything a new law.