« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Democrats Finally Admit Abortion is Not About Women’s Health

Back in the day, a woman pregnant out of wedlock got sent “to her sister’s.” Being pregnant and not married was considered disgraceful and wrong. It was a strike against you.

The babies were born but given up for adoption, abandoned at churches or orphanages or raised by someone else. The child was a socially awkward item, an inconvenience or a mistake that could ruin a life or a reputation because of  a single indiscretion or moment of weakness.

It was never called a threat to the mother’s health.

Later, technology enabled the elimination of the threat to reputations and futures and, wonderfully, it could be done before anyone knew the woman was pregnant. The new-fangled “get-out-of-jail-free” card was called “abortion” and people traveled across state lines and visited back alley abortion providers to avoid damage to their futures and to re-acquire their reputations.

Enter strike two. Now, not only did women have to confess to having “fallen,” but in addition, everyone understood exactly what happened at the doctor’s office; two people went in but only one came out. We could save our reputations but the cost was doubling our guilt.

Abortion kills people. And who wants to justify killing someone because they are an embarrassment? Necessity being the mother of invention, an acceptable justification for the horror visited on the most defenseless among us was found in an appeal to a woman’s health.

Strike three. A woman made bad choices, chose death for another over dishonor for herself and could escape consequences by claiming it was necessary for her health. Is it any wonder there are documented emotional and spiritual traumas associated with abortion?

But the tactic worked. We all knew the truth was otherwise, but we allowed the struggling their self deceptive rationale. Pregnancy was always understood to carry risk, as do most actions, but never so much that it was to be avoided. Despite any “danger,” couples still intentionally got pregnant.

Still, for the majority of the 40 years since Roe v Wade the mantra has been “for the health of the mother!” Only recently has the narrative changed. Of late, the emphasis has switched to rights, specifically, reproductive rights. The pretense of concern for women’s health is discarded. Under the veneer, the truth that was always there is found. It’s a matter of  convenience for the adult woman with no thought to the woman in the womb.

I thought it would take longer for the next logical, yet horrific, step. I really do hate it when I’m wrong.

Today, no less august a body than the US House of Representatives voted there did not need to be a danger to the mother’s physical or mental health. There need be no danger of a child born into poverty or with a disability which might impact its quality of life. The murder of a human being was justified simply because the mother learned she was carrying a girl when what she really wanted was a boy. This ain’t your mother’s abortion, girl! Abortion is just another sex-selection tool.

LifeNews.com reports,

With a 246-168 vote, the bill did not obtain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass. Republicans voted for the bill [the ban] on a 226-7 margin while Democrats opposed banning sex-selection abortions on 161-20 vote margin.

Tennessee conservatives like Marsha Blackburn stood for Life and common sense. Unsurprisingly, President Obama sided with Democrats.

This is the ultimate in selfish “to each according to his need” philosophy and principle put into policy and legislative form. May God have mercy on us …

Cross-posted from Blue Collar Muse.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I have had for a while now, What happens if medical science discovers a way to determine if a fetus will have homosexual tendencies? Will the Gays be OK with women aborting babies because they might be gay? Or would that cause a rift in the Democrat coalition?

    • bobmark

      Of course then they’ll tie themselves into another one re: some form of HHS mandate to screen for genetic “abnormalities”.

    • Dave_A

      The bill never would have done anything to restrict abortion if passed, because EVEN IF PASSED all a woman would have to do is say ‘I just don’t want a baby’ and even if she didn’t want the baby because it was a (boy or girl), she’d get her abortion… She just couldn’t tell the provider that…

      This is election-year political theater for BOTH sides…

      It allows our side to prove yet again that they oppose abortion and are working to restrict it out of existence…

      It allows the Left to prove that they will ‘fight to stop any restrictions on abortion, no matter what’ – and to continue their (failed) narrative that the GOP hates women and wants to ‘punish them with babies’….

      Both sides knew it would never pass…

      It’s just like the immigration hullabaloo that got whipped up every summer before an election, back when Bush was in (but has essentially ‘gone away’ under Obama)… The Right would offer fence-building and jail-time-adding bills… The Left would offer Amnesty… Folks on both sides would get worked up, and then all bills would go down in defeat…

      The point of these sorts of things is to rile up the base and make them vote because ‘if you don’t vote, you’ll let the other side pass (blargh)’….

      • Viet71

        I’m wondering how much gas prices will go down and the stock market will go up July – September.

  • jazzycmk

    ….into believing that they are the real humanitarians in the abortion debate.

    They’ve convinced themselves that they are saving children from what would have probably been unhappy lives (of course, they would probably avoid the term “child” as it would be too humanizing).

    My younger sister is a smart woman (an MD), and she is a weird hybrid of a political creautre (generally fiscally conservative, but generally socially liberal), and she and I go round and round on abortion. She generally justifies it because she thinks the unborn likely would have had unhappy lives if born to parents (or a just a mother) that did not want them.

    I always ask her – so you can live with “maybe would have had a bad life”? (or likely, or potentially) What about rising above your cirumstances? What about the resilience of the human spirit?

    I’m Catholic, and while my ardent pro-life stance was probably born out of that (no pun intended), I can honestly say if has little to do with it now. My approach is much more fatalistic. Just what is that voice or light that was extinguished? Maybe he / she would have been the person to create a cure for cancer, or a longer-lasting light bulb. Or maybe he / she would be the next crack dealer. But the fact is, and there’s no getting around this no matter what juicy rationalization you contrive, that I don’t know. Nobody knows. And when in doubt, I think you just have to err on the side of life.

    • Viet71

      He was something like the ninth of 16 children.

      Most profound thinker 1000 – 2000 A.D.

      Today, young adults think they know what they want in terms of a child. The old school roll of the dice ALWAYS has been the best way for the species.

      • acat

        Beethoven had seven siblings, 2 survived. Clearly, not a wealthy family…

        The statistical argument I find more compelling. Pick someone, one of those one-in-a-million people like .. not a Beethoven or Newton, but .. a Larry Page or a Paul Allen or a Scotty Pippin.

        How many of them – allowing for one-in-a-million – are gone?

        Whose lives haven’t they touched, because they’re gone?

        What works of genius won’t we see, because they’re gone?

        Put in those terms .. destroying potential for so very little in return … seems more effective an argument, at least to me.

        Mew

        • aesthete

          perhaps mass murderers like Hitler might have been aborted, as well. It’s all a wash… and when it comes right down to it, the case against abortion should rest on the humanity of those being aborted, not their potential contributions to society. Elsewise, it just becomes an inadvertent argument for forcing people to have children (“We must have more Beethovens!”).

          • acat

            B’sides, large families are an inherent good .. right?

            Mew

          • Viet71

            The push toward the future is unimaginably more difficult without the occasional Newton.

          • acat

            A chaotic state causes more advances .. even when the chaos is putting down a great evil.

            (one can make the case that Red State is a response to the early successes of the “online left” …)

            Mew

          • Viet71

            no text at all

          • acat

            in Italy in a decade than under several generations of Chinese emperors.

            Chaotic, unquiet, messy progress… but progress nonetheless.

            Mew

          • Viet71

            I’ll take chaos. I lived through the 1960s.

            I think a lot these days about the election of Reagan and 1980-1983.

            Special times.

          • acat

            As in, the classic Chinese curse… “May you live in interesting times!”.

            Looks like we’re there.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            I see this more as a (somewhat disturbing) case for forced breeding than one against abortion, your mileage may vary. Newtons will exist regardless of population growth. The Jewish contribution to intellectual and scientific history has been enormous, despite very low reproduction and population growth rates. The African contribution to same has been low despite having a much higher population growth and reproduction rate. There’s a little more to furthering the human condition than increasing the population, and there are of course costs associated with artificially large human populations. We can have our Newtons without forcing or artificially encouraging people to have children — and I don’t think it’s either good policy or good argumentation to argue for a pro-life position as a form of social engineering.

          • Viet71

            My view as a matter of law is, repeal Roe v. Wade, and leave the matter to the states.

            As a matter of science, I think abortion as birth control is bad for the species. Unplanned births are the way of human advancement, as I understand the trek from Lascaux to NYC 2012.

          • aesthete

            I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

            I understand where you’re going with this, and I’d like to preface this by saying that I admire and respect both you and acat, and find you both to be value-adding posters. I don’t think you are advocating for forced breeding. I do, however, think that the logic is similar. Bans of certain products or lifestyles purely to effect a political, religious, cultural, or aesthetic program (even if there are good reasons to favor or disfavor such a regime) are part and parcel of an expansive government, and reproduction/family issues are the most personal and individual of choices to be trampled by government. I dislike lazy, unfocused prose — I think that the degradation of language has contributed to the decline of rational thinking. I am also in favor of the death penalty against certain crimes. If someone were to argue for the death penalty based on the average death row inmate’s use of prose, I would think it problematic — both because it obscures the main issue, and because it implicitly advocates the death penalty for those types of goals.

            Being more pragmatic, I can tell you that we were losing on the fight for abortion when pro-lifers framed the issue exclusively using scripture verses and by coupling it with a very particular view rejecting birth control and promiscuity. I am wary of going back to that sort of rhetoric and policy position, for the same reason that I am against the ban of contraceptives (both morally and pragmatically). We should, I think, be careful to decouple things that we would like to happen in voluntary society (larger families and greater pop growth, for instance), and what we want government to undertake or deprive people of.

            The species will survive with or without abortion. Millions of children have no such luxury under the current regime. The latter matters much more to me than the former, and I think is the thing to emphasize if we’re to end abortions.

        • Viet71

          n/t

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).

    For all those Ron Paul supporters that said there was no difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama…I only have one thing to say.

    Bite me.

  • aesthete

    effectively does nothing, does not ban abortions, is un-Constitutional, and detracts from the moral problem that is abortion.

    One will never, ever, ever be able to prove that an abortion is sex-selective in a court of law. I’m not even sure who would have the standing to prosecute for same, and how a prosecution would begin. Beyond that, this provides ammunition to folks who say that various abortions are wrong while others are not based purely on arbitrarily-designated motivations. Abortion is wrong, whether it’s being done as an attempt to get only sons or to facilitate “lifestyle choices” like a certain distribution of work/play time. Much like “hate crimes” before, this is simply a criminalization of personal sentiment.

    Hillary Clinton is against sex-selective abortions, while otherwise supporting infanticide. This bill provides her and the Bart Stupaks of the world a chance

  • aesthete

    to affirm non-existent “pro-life” creds, would not have stopped one single abortion (sex-selective or otherwise), as detracted from discussion of the core moral issue behind abortion.

    Choking abortion providers using regulation is good strategy. This is not.

  • lineholder

    Dems have been and using “plausible” arguments for years on end to support abortion, and they’ve managed to succeed in the more naive and gullible of Americans into believing that this is “acceptable behavior”.

    Even in the argument they’re presenting now, that it is about a “woman’s rights”…that’s BS, aesthete. It’s about the fact that the abortion industry is a very lucrative industry, the left has rigged the system in a way that let’s the abortion industry gain a lot of funds from taxpayer’s pockets, the money is being used for the sake of power and control within our government and our society, this is an election year, things aren’t going well for the left and Obama, the bonds between the Obama admin and Unions have been fractured, the bonds between the black community and the Obama admin stand at risk of fracturing…the abortion industry is one of the few allies the Obama admin has left with deep pockets…and the money is coming from US…to kill babies. Period.

    It’s about the lies, layer upon layer of lies and deceit… They need both the money and the power right now.

  • garfieldjl

    Specifically it is enforcing the 14th amendment which is equal protection under the law.

    Now this bill also means that Roe v. Wade would have to be redressed by the US Supreme Court, because when the court decided that case they acknowledged the issue may have to be addressed again if the “fetus” ended up being defined as a human being in the future.

  • aesthete

    that this sort of legislation helps Dems in imperiled seats get a higher NRLC rating/better “street cred” amongst social conservatives for a bill that wouldn’t stop a single abortion, and that isn’t even a great “message” bill.

    I agree with the content of your post. I don’t think that this bill does a good job of express that message at all, not when it also lets folks like Clinton and Stupak get free points from pro-lifers for no good reason.

  • http://www.timelyrenewed.com timelyrenewed

    end the Supreme Court’s usurpation of the right of the states to regulate abortion. Otherwise these efforts and those in the states are fighting an uphill battle against the doctrine of judicial precedent. There is another possible solution. This is to correct the underlying distortion of the Constitution which has allowed the Supreme Court to use the hopelessly vague language of section 1 of the 14th amendment to read whatever social policy it wants into the Constitution.

    The solution to this is a constitutional amendment, not to ban abortion, but rather to return section 1 to its original purpose of banning governmental race discrimination. This will zero out all of the Supreme Court’s unrelated judicial lawmaking under that section of the Constitution. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

  • acat

    And this bill definitely falls into the *something* camp.

    It wouldn’t end anything, it would only apply another coat of blue dye to certain DemocRATs.

    Mew

  • lineholder

    If there is anything at all that we should know beyond any shadow of doubt it is that the left is deceitful. They LIE. They want to define want goes on within the scope of their own lies. We need to stop buying into this part of it as much as we do and deal with the underlying lies that they are using.

    BTW, for my own part, I think taking the approach of “quality of care” and regulatory measures is one of the best chances we have to keep this reined in…at least for the time being. So I do agree with you on that.

  • robertm75

    that a higher pro-abort rating is going to tip the scales toward Dems in the general? Let’s look at this for a moment. Districts and States where Dems have a natually favorable advantage–Cali, NY, etc.–don’t need to improve their “street cred” for the pro-abort crowd. The feminazis in those states are well aware of the Dems’ desire to carry out the holocaust in the womb. Now states that might be on the cusp either way in the abortion debate–Col, NM, OH, FL, etc–might actually have a negative reaction to candidates who voted to allow the killing of a child simply because it was a boy when the parents wanted a girl and visa versa. While Americans may be willing to give a little on abortion regarding the health of the mother, they certainly are not in a position to start saying that the simple case of gender–or eye color or hair color–be a good criteria for killing a child in the womb. Particularly in light of recent polling evidence suggesting that the country is pretty split on the issue when removing the health of the mother aspect.

  • aesthete

    I just don’t think this is a good bill to express that frustration in a way that will help the cause.

    The PBA ban was very good (despite being un-Consitutional) because it a) did eliminate abortions at the margins (albeit a small percentage of total abortions) and b) did get to the core issue and expose the Dems as the pro-infanticide party. This bill does neither.

  • garfieldjl

    If that definition is in play, Roe v. Wade could in effect be overturned, it would also set the grounds for Federal Law to serious curtail abortions and it would be Constitutional because it would be something that enforces the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment, because the alternative would be to say that it is okay to murder certain people because it is inconveinent.

  • checkmate2012

    Just curious as he says he’s for gay marriage but then won’t defend DOMA which gives states the rights to enact their own laws. That is his backdoor solution to gay marriage and seems he’s trying to do exactly what the SC did in Roe v Wade? Same, same or am I wrong?

  • Viet71

    When Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe, tying the right to an abortion to the mother’s health in some circumstances and leaving the matter to the doctor’s medical judgment in others, he THOUGHT he was restricting abortion.

    After all, he was a Republican, appointed by Richard Nixon.

    Little did Harry understand the victory he handed to the pro-aborts.

  • gekster

    when you’re right you’re right.
    Good post and kudos.

  • Kyle-MI

    This bill made news on all of the major MSM outlets. It was bad news for the pro-choice crowd. While a large chunk of swing voters say that they support abortion in general, there is also a significant block who are uneasy (to say the least) about sex-selective abortion. This bill shows the extremism of the pro-choice Democrats. With the coverage and the swing vote feelings, generally the bill was good PR for the pro-life movement and for the GOP. On top of that it blunts the “War on Women” meme from Obama and the Dems. The coverage for a few “pro-life” Dems is a small price to pay.

    As law, it doesn’t matter, because it would not have passed (or even get voted on) the Dem Senate, and certainly would have been vetoed by Obama. Even bills that you think would be affective again abortion will not pass the Senate or Obama, either. The only way this will change is with the election and replacement of judges.

  • acat

    It gave cover to selected Dems trying to Stupak their way to re-election, it wouldn’t prevent any abortions even if signed (you wanna try to prove sex-selection?) and – as you say – it was going nowhere.

    You’re looking at the Dem house organ spinning this into a win for them … but in reality, it was always going to be a win for them.

    If we want to pass a bill that makes some changes, then .. how about we *pass a bill that makes some changes* ?

    Mew

  • Kyle-MI

    Voting for bills is about more than passing laws. Sending up bills, even bills that have no chance of passing, can be a form of advertisement. It can be a way of arguing your case. The Dems do this all the time. Why can’t Republicans get a clue about this?

    Yes, the primary purpose of bills are to enact laws by which to govern, but it is not the only purpose. I know that we wish legislating can be pure, but it is not. It is a part of the political process.

  • acat

    bit of advertising, in bill form.

    Think about it.

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2012/06/02/what-justice-kennedy-wrought-sex-selection-abortion-as-hate-crime-to-trick-democrats/

  • robertm75

    wanted the advertisement that they are for gender selection when it comes to abortion? At a time when the nation is about 50/50 on the issue of abortion in general? If they want to align themselves with Eugenicists and Nazi science, then I say we give them all the genetic-based anti-abortion bills they want to vote against. We should pass a bill that curtails abortion in predominantly black neighborhoods–since the black community is the primary users of abortion–and then let them try to claim that the GOP is racist.

  • aesthete

    The Dems get to say, “We tolerate diversity within the party.”

    The Dems in districts where they can be beat by Republicans can vote against this bill and say, “See — we’re reasonable on life issues” or “We’re pro-life”.

    The Dems in other districts won’t care, since they won’t lose their races.

    It will be a slight positive for Congressional Dems in seats that are at risk.

  • robertm75

    do Dems who vote against–mind you that is against a bill putting some sort of prevention against selective abortions–able to claim the title of “pro-life”? Unless you meant vote for this bill? The only way for Dems to come out on top in this issue is to have the House Dems vote for it where they are vulnerable and leave it up to the Senate Dems to block/delay it coming to a vote until after the election. If Obamster loses, they can pass it and he can veto it in the lameduck session. Anything else is just transparent and the Dems know it. Why do you think it hasn’t been picked up by the MSM in the same regard as Virginia’s so called invasive abortion law requiring prospective aborters to get a sonogram? They know this is a loser for them.