Current events
Democrats want to you to believe they care for children and they stand for protection of American children. For example, they claim they will protect your children from the evils of trans fats, okay. They claim they would protect your children from gay conversion therapy, okay. But somehow, they don’t care if doctors kill our children either in the womb or after birth. That is where the abortion debate is at currently.
Most abortion advocates tend to be Democrats. The abortion advocates will do almost anything to avoid describing the realities and consequences of their position. The realities of abortion are unpleasant. The nitty gritty is abortion providers, after killing the baby, then often chop it up and sell the parts for profit. The consequence is the death of a baby. Make no mistake, abortion advocates are making their position more radical daily because of their belief; life does not matter. Not your life, not my life, not the life of the elderly, not the life of a child and not the lives of the sick or infirmed.
The Sasse position
Democrats blocked the effort of Senator Sasse of Nebraska for a unanimous consent resolution on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This bill isn’t technically about abortion. It’s about protecting babies who survive an attempted abortion procedure. It applies when an abortion is done and the baby is born alive anyway. The argument of “my body, my choice” has now morphed into “not my body anymore, still my choice” which ignores completely the question of when parental rights of the father attach.
Sasse’s bill exempts mothers from prosecution. It would require health care practitioners present to help ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital. Those healthcare professionals would be required to “exercise the same degree of professional skill” he or she would use with any other baby.
The Murray position
Leftist senator Patty Murray of Washington, elected as “A mom in tennis shoes,” objected because, in her words, “We have laws against infanticide in this country…” She is wrong. There are laws that allow infanticide with more on the way. We have one of those laws in New York. The failed Virginia bill would also have allowed the killing of unborn babies until birth for just about any reason. Worse yet, if those babies survived an attempt on their lives, you could toss them in the chipper shredder alive after birth.
A little political reality
The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute found that a majority of women who seek late-term abortion “are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” The pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute also reports both medical literature and late-term abortion providers show that the majority of late-term procedures are not performed for “maternal health complications or lethal fetal anomalies discovered late in pregnancy.” This decision is a moral one being made legislatively for us. It has far reaching ramifications.
The Virginia Delegate who sponsored their controversial bill is on record as agreeing that her bill would allow abortions for women dilating in the 40th week of pregnancy. We need to think about that. When the Virginia governor explained that “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother…” He was talking about euthanasia as if terminating the lives of infants with fetal abnormalities such as Down syndrome for the convenience of the parents were morally palatable. We need to think about that too.
Pro-choice advocates continue to mislead Americans by claiming abortions are a matter of life or death for the mothers. That is rarely if ever the case. Regardless, every bill limiting post-20-week abortions makes exceptions for the life of the mother. Most 20-week abortion bans are opposed by Democrats because the abortions in question are used to weed out imperfect “viable babies”. Have you ever fact checked that assertion?
Some argue that aborting viable babies is permissible for reasons of emotional stress but also to alleviate “unfair” fiscal pressure on parents and hospitals. Do we really want to sanction abortions based on the financial condition of the hospital? Remember our national debt is about $22 trillion. If we start cutting entitlement funding at some point what implications will that have for hospitals dependent on federal funding?
Think about how much children with autism cost. Why not them euthanize them, as well? Where do we draw the line? Do we really want to draw the line with the budgetary red pen? What is the death penalty if not euthanizing adults for unacceptable social interactions? And please, explain the moral distinction between going to a NICU and injecting poison into a premature baby who is causing the mother emotional and fiscal stress and injecting poison into another baby the same exact age, same exact reasons who’s in the womb?
Conclusion:
We have allowed pro-choice advocates to get away with not answering the serious questions about their opposition to post-20-week abortion restrictions since inception of the debate. Just because they won’t talk about it doesn’t make it any less true. Would buy a car from a salesman who wouldn’t talk about its condition? The issue does not change and it does not go away unless and until women stop having babies. Which side are you on?
