The Alabama Legislature has passed a bill that would put significant restrictions on abortion if it becomes law. The bill contains, get ready for today’s talking point, “no exceptions for rape or incest.” That phrase appears in the headlines in stories about the bill from the Washington Post and CBS News; the lack of such exceptions figures in stories from the AP, Reuters, and other sources. The real problem that Progressives have with the bill is that it outlaws abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detectable. It seems that they’re trying to use the lack of exceptions for the rare instance of rape and incest as a way painting the bill’s supports as out-of-the-mainstream extremists. We’re also beginning to see stories about Rowe v. Wade being in danger of reversal by the Supreme Court. I expect to hear the tip jars rattling at various presidential campaigns quite soon.
I’m not in favor of rape or incest but I believe it’s a good thing that we no longer treat rape as a capital crime and hang the perpetrators. I also believe that we shouldn’t kill either of the victims of a rape, so I’ve never understood why it makes sense to allow killing a child because he or she was conceived during a rape. I feel the same way about killing a child conceived incestuously.
The Washington Free Beacon reports that Senator Tim Kaine has hinted that he may oppose a bill that would require proper medical care for a baby that survived an abortion. When asked by a constituent if he supported the pending Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Kaine, who has claimed personal pro-life beliefs rooted in his Catholic faith, dodged the question while acknowledging that the bill would only apply to abortion survivors.
“This bill would establish new requirements for health care practitioners in the case of a fetus who survives an abortion,” he replied in a Feb. 12 letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “I support the right of women to make their own health and reproductive decisions. For that reason, I oppose efforts to weaken the basic holding of Roe v. Wade.”
The Senate will hold a roll-call vote on the bill in an effort to force pro-choice politicians to take a stand on the radical abortion positions taken by states such as New York. Denying care to survivors is far beyond the beliefs of most voters who see denying care to a live child as a form of infanticide.
The Senate is scheduled to vote on Monday.
Ann Althouse reviews the Supreme Court’s decisions on abortion and proposes the following:
Here’s an idea for an abortion regulation that I’ve never heard anyone else discuss, but which occurred to me as I’ve read and reread the Supreme Court cases. A woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement: I have reflected on the nature of the procedure I am about to undergo, and I attest to my sincere belief that it will not kill a human being.
Read the whole thing.
The Weekly Standard has a piece up in which Nancy Pelosi is quoted, and she seems to be saying that she saying that she supports abortion because she’s a Catholic. (H/T, Evi L. Blogger Lady at Batshit Crazy News). I am not a Catholic, but from what I know of that church’s doctrine, I find this mind-bogglingly weird.
Pope Francis was unavailable for comment.
The New York Post offers evidence that Kermit Gosnell may not be much of an outlier among abortionists. (H/T, Patterico)
All of us are pro-choice to the extent that we believe that we should be free to choose the way we wish. The anarchists among us would agree with that point of view wholeheartedly. Libertarians might moderate that to the extent of limiting choices that affect another person. At the other end of the spectrum, nanny-statists and Progressives would say that choice must be limited by their understanding of what is good for us, by which they really mean the choices they choose.
At the silly end of things, nanny-statists such as Mayor Bloomberg want to take away your right to choose a Big Gulp. They argue that it’s bad for your health and that you’ll be a burden on the healthcare system, yada, yada, yada. At the serious end of things, they want to take away your right to choose to defend yourself with a modern sporting rifle loaded with a normal capacity magazine. They argue that … umm … well, actually they don’t have a logical argument; they just don’t like the idea that you might have a gun. They have to make a stretch to bring some other party’s interest to limit your choices.
OTOH, most Progressives favor a right for a mother to end the life of her child in utero. For those of us who look at the DNA of a child and see a member of our species from conception, it’s clear that an abortion affects an innocent party. Others may disagree about when that child deserves protection, but essentially no one advocates the killing of viable children born alive. The question of when to protect a child’s life is one of those inconvenient questions that many would rather not wrestle with.
That, I think, is the reason for the main stream media’s avoidance of the Gosnell murder cases. I brings that question into focus.
That’s the one line I never hear from Progressives during coverage of stories such as the Gosnell trial.