The bill is the latest response by progressives who seek to prevent conservatives from passing any comprehensive legislation, like last session's fetal heartbeat bills that would've prohibited abortion in the first trimester when a heartbeat is detected.
Over a dozen of bills restricting abortion was filed by Republican lawmakers last session, and more are expected to be brought to committee in 2020.
With the abortion argument sure to be at the forefront in next year's legislative cycle, Book's proposal is one that should be examined closely. It's sure to be a contentious debate topic moving forward, so let's examine the glaring flaws comprised in her potential legislation.
It Sets a Dangerous Precedent
Like most left-leaning bills, Book's legislation takes the fight against pro-life policies to the extreme. Instead of bringing forth a bill aimed at the mother, Book would rather unravel the fabric of our nation's founding, and eliminate one the basic freedoms granted to us by the Constitution -- the right to vote.
And here lies the problem.
Book's legislation would set a dangerous precedent that not only erodes the foundation and inner workings of the legislative process, but it would open Pandora's Box for further extreme policies could that could restrict Republicans from enacting conservative legislation.
Book's argument is predicated on the fact that since women carry the child in their womb, they should be involved in deciding the fate of the innocent life. Such an argument is not only politically weak, but its structural integrity is also compromised rather easily.
What about legislation involving education and teachers? The overwhelming majority of teachers in the U.S. are white and female, with the two demographic making up 80 percent and 77 percent of the workforce. Should men not be allowed to vote on laws involving our educational system unless white women were equally represented in office?
Let's take it a step further.
What about matters involving agriculture? Farmers and agricultural producers are disproportionately represented in office. What if those producing a harvest needed to be adequately represented before legislation could pass on their behalf? Or those in the medical profession? Or the insurance industry? The list goes on and on.
Likewise, what if men enacted a similar proposition on matters involving military spending? Since males encompass the military's infantry, would that be fair? Of course, not.
These are just a few examples where Book's bill creates a slippery slope that could spiral out-of-control if both sides adopted a similar framework for how they enact legislation.
It Would Make Campaigning Obsolete
As you read this, those running for office are getting a head start on the arduous campaign season. It's a marathon, not a race, and it is mentally and physically taxing for many. Whether it's knocking on thousands of doors, or making countless phone calls to donors, politicians have to have a strong work ethic if they want to run for office.
Book's proposal would destroy this election process. Why run for office when a party -- who's the minority -- can artificially affect the inner workings of the legislative process? The bill would make this process obsolete. Why go through the grueling process when those in office can handcuff the other side with a law that functions more as a "girl's only" sign rather than a fleshed -out blueprint.
The bill would also eliminate the advantage of having a majority in both chambers. Having a majority is a huge advantage for either party, granting them the leeway to push legislation that they wouldn't be able to if they lacked the upper hand. With Book's proposed legislation, losing elections would have little to no ramifications.
Book's agenda would systemically eliminate zero-sum game in the House and Senate, causing gridlock to become the status quo.
It Ignores the Life of the Child
At the end of the day, Book's manifesto seeks to achieve one thing: removing accountability from having an abortion.
Going back to the mainstream argument utilized by the Left, Book and others on her side believe any anti-abortion measures are an invasion of their bodies. They use the typical talking point that says "my body my choice" without ever applying it to any other facet of life.
Example: you have your own house and property. You own it and raise your family in it. But if you kill one of your kids inside it, can you still use the common excuse deployed by Democrats that say it was your choice?
Why not? It's your house that encompasses your child. Shouldn't you be able to do what you want inside your property without the government getting involved?
No. Because that child, like the one growing in the womb, has intrinsic value that trumps ownership.
Book and others neglect that fact, only viewing the woman's body as a haven where the criminal justice system does not reside.
The Collective Over the Individual
To sum it up, Book is advocating for equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. Instead of using her position, her influence, and her leadership to encourage women to run for office and Democrats to take back both chambers in Florida through the political process, she's manufacturing a bill that serves to unfairly imbalance a game where progressives are losing daily to conservatives in the Sunshine State.
Her legislation is bad for both political parties and undermines the very process that makes our state, our government, and our republic so unique.
Instead of focusing on group identity and the collective narrative being pushed by the Left, Book should prop up the individual -- regardless of their gender.
Along with women, men were instrumental in passing a federal women's suffrage amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Imagine if the fate of the 19th Amendment was held hostage by a bill like Book's?