Pro-abortionists try to wiggle out of confronting the sheer brutally of dismemberment abortions
By Dave Andrusko
Earlier this afternoon, the Oklahoma Senate joined the Oklahoma House
in passing The Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act.
All the bill requires to become law is the expected signature of Gov.
Mary Fallin.
Yesterday and today NRL News Today highlighted that Gov. Sam Brownback had signed SB 95, making Kansas the first state to enact an Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act. In addition to Oklahoma and Kansas, similar legislation is under consideration in Missouri and South Carolina.
We’ve written at considerable length about how pro-abortionists are trying to position themselves to get on the “right” side of tearing unborn human beings limb from limb. Let’s look at one example–a story that appeared Tuesday in the New York Times.
To the credit of Erik Eckholm and Frances Robles, they eschew the gobbledygook pro-abortionists offer in explaining SB 95. Eckholm and Robles write that a dismemberment abortion is “defined in part as “˜knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus.'”
According to SB 95, a dismemberment abortion
(Former abortionist Anthony Levatino, M.D., described in great detail the D&E dismemberment abortions he once performed at here.)
The Times’ reporters also write, “Earlier in pregnancy, the fetus’s neurological system is just developing and by all accounts cannot feel pain, medical experts say.” An oblique shot at the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
But even in alluding to pain–at any stage of pregnancy–is a victory
for truth, which is that by no later than the 20th week, the unborn
child can experience horrific pain as she is being aborted.
There are lots of other items at mobile.nytimes.com, but let me address just one more here.
Naturally opponents are given plenty of space to yammer. Janet Crepps, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, for example, told the Times, “The law raises very grave constitutional concerns.”
Well, let’s see. Let’s find out if a majority of the Supreme Court is comfortable with “extracting such unborn child [who is alive!] one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments.”
Let’s determine if the two state interests that have been cited in recent abortion jurisprudence–to show respect for the unborn child and to preserve the integrity of the medical profession–are given due deference.
And finally let’s call the High Court to account.
Earlier this afternoon, the Oklahoma Senate joined the Oklahoma House
in passing The Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act.
All the bill requires to become law is the expected signature of Gov.
Mary Fallin.Yesterday and today NRL News Today highlighted that Gov. Sam Brownback had signed SB 95, making Kansas the first state to enact an Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act. In addition to Oklahoma and Kansas, similar legislation is under consideration in Missouri and South Carolina.
We’ve written at considerable length about how pro-abortionists are trying to position themselves to get on the “right” side of tearing unborn human beings limb from limb. Let’s look at one example–a story that appeared Tuesday in the New York Times.
To the credit of Erik Eckholm and Frances Robles, they eschew the gobbledygook pro-abortionists offer in explaining SB 95. Eckholm and Robles write that a dismemberment abortion is “defined in part as “˜knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus.'”
According to SB 95, a dismemberment abortion
means, with the purpose of
causing the death of an unborn child, knowingly dismembering a living
unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from
the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors
or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid
levers, slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in
order to cut or rip it off.
The law is very specific, contrary to the pretensions of pro-abortionists. The Times’
reporters call such language an “emotionally charged line of attack.” I
would respond that the attack is on the defenseless unborn child. The
language tells exactly what is happening to her, no more, but no less.(Former abortionist Anthony Levatino, M.D., described in great detail the D&E dismemberment abortions he once performed at here.)
The Times’ reporters also write, “Earlier in pregnancy, the fetus’s neurological system is just developing and by all accounts cannot feel pain, medical experts say.” An oblique shot at the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
There are lots of other items at mobile.nytimes.com, but let me address just one more here.
Naturally opponents are given plenty of space to yammer. Janet Crepps, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, for example, told the Times, “The law raises very grave constitutional concerns.”
Well, let’s see. Let’s find out if a majority of the Supreme Court is comfortable with “extracting such unborn child [who is alive!] one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments.”
Let’s determine if the two state interests that have been cited in recent abortion jurisprudence–to show respect for the unborn child and to preserve the integrity of the medical profession–are given due deference.
And finally let’s call the High Court to account.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment