For The Dead Fish Wrapper, Abortion Is A Civil Right

As anybody who hasn't been living under a rock for the past 40 years know, abortion is one of the most sacred cows of the liberal left and the Oregonian (but I repeat myself).  Any restrictions on abortions cause murderous screams of anger from the left, because they can't stand to have someone tell them they can't murder their unborn children.  There isn't much gray area there.  This screaming and anguish is continued in the editorial from Novermber 9th, and the title says it all: "An unacceptable cutback in access to abortion".

Health care reform should not be pursued as a mission so impossible that it justifies restricting women's access to abortion.

That, however, is exactly what the House did Saturday night in passing the most significant health care overhaul in 44 years. The legislation was historic, but at what price? It was amended at the last minute with antiabortion provisions so restrictive that they would undermine the civil rights of American women.

What are these restrictions?  Simply that federal funding can't be used to pay for abortions, and that is a fantastic development for those of us who believe that a fetus is a human (the culture of life), not the myth that it is just a blob of undeveloped tissue (i.e the cuture of death).

And since when has abortion been a civil right?  It's certainly not detailed in the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution anywhere.  Actually, it's one of the activist judicial rights invented such as the "right to privacy" that is supposedly enshrined in the Constitution, too.  Regis Nicoll explains how this "right" has been created and has evolved:

It surprises many to learn that although U.S. Constitution contains certain protections from unreasonable searches and seizures, it includes no explicit right of privacy. Nevertheless, a modern doctrine of privacy began in 1965 with Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case, the Supreme Court determined that marital privacy was a liberty guaranteed under the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights, making laws that banned contraception unconstitutional.

As appalling as that decision was, more troubling was the majority opinion rendered by Justice Kennedy: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Although no one but Big Brother would suggest we shouldn’t have the freedom to hold our own understandings about life, Kennedy’s implication is that actions derived from those understandings should be exempt from governmental interference. Taken to its logical end, Kennedy’s opinion is moral chaos.

Little wonder that the “sweet mystery of life” (as it’s been called) led to our next descent. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court broadened the right of privacy to include the sexual activities of consenting adults, regardless of gender or marital status. Ruling that a Texas law forbidding sexual intimacy between same-sex persons was unconstitutional, the Court stated, “[The] Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention.”

In a span of less than forty years, the explicit protections of the Constitution swelled into an absolute right of private conduct. In effect, the Courts declared that what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults, and what one does with one’s body and the life growing inside it, is nobody’s business. Or is it?

THE EVOLUTION OF PRIVACY
It surprises many to learn that although U.S. Constitution contains certain protections from unreasonable searches and seizures, it includes no explicit right of privacy. Nevertheless, a modern doctrine of privacy began in 1965 with Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case, the Supreme Court determined that marital privacy was a liberty guaranteed under the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights, making laws that banned contraception unconstitutional.

By 1973 (Roe v. Wade), the Court ruled that “This right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” Privacy, thus expanded, led to the legalization of abortion at the cost of four thousand children per day. But by 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), the Court declared this right so sacred that a woman was not compelled to even inform the baby’s father of her intent.

As appalling as that decision was, more troubling was the majority opinion rendered by Justice Kennedy: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Although no one but Big Brother would suggest we shouldn’t have the freedom to hold our own understandings about life, Kennedy’s implication is that actions derived from those understandings should be exempt from governmental interference. Taken to its logical end, Kennedy’s opinion is moral chaos.

 

Now we get to the important part, where the editors display their complete misunderstanding of basic terminology.

Abortion-rights supporters are rightfully dismayed. The amendment, creating unprecedented new restrictions on abortion funding, is a stain on the health care reform effort and could scuttle it if they aren't kept out of the forthcoming Senate bill.

For months, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have been saying that any government-run health insurance plan would not pay for elective abortions. Fair enough. Those pledges were in sync with long-standing prohibitions against public funding for abortions.

But Saturday night's amendment goes too far. It would extend those restrictions to federally subsidized private insurance policies that women would purchase in a new marketplace called a health insurance "exchange."

Ok, time for a quick lesson on terminology basics.  What does the term "federally subsidized" mean?  Here's a definition of the word "subsidy":

a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

So in other words, a federally subsidzed insurance policy would be a policy partially paid for by taxpayer dollars.  Please editors, explain how that is private?

And the histrionics continue:

It's bad enough that this would mean millions of working class women buying the subsidized policies would be denied coverage for the full range of reproductive health services. It would also lead to elimination of abortion coverage even for women buying policies on the exchange without government subsidies.

That's because insurers would have to drop the procedure from their plans in order to sell them on the newly expanded exchange. This would represent a seismic change in the status quo, hugely to the negative and completely unacceptable.

It also severely complicates the already tangled politics of health care reform. In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 41 House Democrats vowed to vote against the final bill unless this amendment is stripped.

It made its way into the bill Saturday night under pressure from a minority of conservative Democrats. What's worrisome is that the Senate tilts even more toward the right, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., no champion of abortion rights, is up for re-election in a conservative state.

Here's what's been lost in this messy process: Abortion is legal in the United States, yet the House just passed a bill that would effectively prohibit women paying for the procedure with their own money.

OK, one more time: how is it their own money when it's federally subsidized?  What keeps a woman from getting an abortion without insurance?  Why must my tax dollars pay for a procedure that is morally reprehensible?

One thing to notice is the extreme terminology that is used to make the situation sounds soooooo evil:

  • antiabortion provisions so restrictive that they would undermine the civil rights of American women
  • a seismic change in the status quo
  • hugely to the negative
  • completely unacceptable
  • severely complicates

This isn't surprising, though.  It's the simple liberal tactic of making something seem so drastically bad that drastic steps are needed immeditaely to fix it (such as Obama's joke of  a stimulus bill that would supposedly "save or create" jobs).

I could go on and on about abortion and the rank hypocrisy and selfishness of its proponents, but there's one thing I would like to point out regarding the common claim that htis is all about the health of the mother (since abortion is, after a civil right, correct?)  The common claim is that at a minimum, abortion should be available for cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother.  Back in 2004, when Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion ban that had liberals screaming, they went to court to overturn the law and protect their right to murder their children.  One thing that came out in the trials was the complete lack of evidence that abortion was ever necessary to actually save the life of the mother.  As documented by Chuck Colson:

You may recall that after President Bush signed the partial-birth abortion ban into law, pro-abortion groups immediately challenged it in court. Those cases are now being tried in New York, California, and Nebraska. But abortion advocates may have gone too far this time, because in those courtrooms the ugly truth about partial-birth abortion is coming out for everyone to hear.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), is attending the New York trial and posting his notes on the ACLJ website. Jay has recorded some incredibly revealing exchanges between Judge Richard Casey and the witnesses for the abortionists. For instance, Judge Casey asked one abortionist whether the fetus felt pain during the procedure. The doctor responded, "I have no idea." When the judge pressed the question, the doctor admitted that he had never seen any studies on fetal pain and never wondered during a procedure whether the fetus might be in pain, but that now that he came to think about it, it must feel some kind of pain. The judge asked other abortionists the same question and even heard testimony from an expert on fetal pain.

It appears that Judge Casey was insistent on getting an answer to this question because he had been well informed about the procedure. Under intense questioning by the judge and the government's attorneys, the abortion doctors described the partial-birth procedure in detail. At one point, a doctor told the judge that the fetal skull is crushed by forceps that are "like an end of tongs you use to pick up a salad." Judge Casey said, "Except in this case you are not picking up a salad; you are crushing a baby's skull." He then asked whether the baby's hands or feet were moving during the abortion. The doctor answered that the feet were moving until the skull was crushed. It's small wonder that the judge was so sure that this procedure means terrible pain for the fetus.

According to press reports, similar facts are coming out in the California and Nebraska courts. And that's not all that's coming to light. Over and over again, abortionists admitted that they could not think of any cases where partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. In fact, as Sekulow points out in his own reflections on the case, in 1999 in Kansas -- the only state that requires a report on the reason for a partial-birth abortion -- in every case of a partial-birth abortion the reason given was "mental health."

In other words, things like "being pregnant is causing me too much stress".  The key here is that when put under direct questioning, abortion proponents cannot find cases where the actual phyisical health of the mother was in danger.  In other words, it's all about convenience.  And that's what all the histrionics on display in this editorial is about - the inconvenience of not being able to legally take an innocent life.

Abby Johnson ex-director Bryan TX Planned Parenthood

A special thanks to Abby Johnson, the ex-director of the Bryan Texas Planned Parenthood office on 29th Street:

Abby Johnson now encourages thinking and loving individuals to place a special value on others who are (also humans made in the image of God) and in the same stage of development that "They were"!

The thoughts that dance in the mind of humans, is conceived in their heart and hinges on the pivotal question that ushers in the undeserved "Death penalty" for the unborn; or the joyous excitement, anticipating the soon coming birth of a child.

The question that answers the complex motive for a person's actions after conception is "Is the pregnancy and baby wanted or rejected by one or both parents (or families) of the child"?!!!

And if most women-with-child was loved by the child's father,
she would smile and happily say "No abortion" why bother.

Ask God and the person you mated with to forgive you,
forgive yourself and live the abundant life.

Sincerely,

Arthur Trafford

User login







Syndicate

Syndicate content