NARAL sees Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act as “major, nationwide threat”
Send to Kindle
By Dave AndruskoWhen NARAL uses a piece of pro-life legislation to fundraise on, you can be sure it will act in exactly the negative manner it falsely attributes to pro-lifers. That is, the language will be inaccurate, intended to polarize, and wholly misleading.
There is a particular irony that NARAL should rhetorically go off the deep end about the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act today. I will explain why in just a second.
Pro-abortionists are nothing if not unoriginal. So…how do they describe a piece of legislation that won’t allow abortionists to dismember a living unborn human being piece by piece? They don’t get into the specifics–they don’t dare to.
We will.
The Act bans “the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments [that], slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”
Instead they recycle the idea that the Act uses “medically inaccurate language.” Not to be confused, of course with such familiar pro-abortion ruses as saying dismemberment abortion “involves dilating the cervix and using surgical instruments to remove the fetal and placental tissue.”
Ilyse G. Hogue, President, NARAL Pro-Choice America, tells her followers that in addition to using “gory” language, the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act “demonizes abortion providers” intending to “polarize public opinion.”
Really? Let’s take the latter charge first.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. “Polarizing public opinion” is the Abortion Industry’s stock and trade. Nothing pro-lifers propose–no matter how middle-of-the-road or supported by the public–is anything other than “radical,” “disrespects women,” and/or unconstitutional.
This law would “polarize public opinion” for one reason only: because it removes the veil, bringing what actually happens in an abortion out of the darkness and into the light of day
What about demonizing abortionists? Presumably because really only awful people would “use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina…[using] the traction created by the opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from the remainder of the body…. [until the unborn baby] bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb…”
That is taken from an opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, drawing on the testimony of abortionist LeRoy Carhart. “In Dr. Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with ‘a tray full of pieces,’” Justice Kennedy added.
In the beginning I referenced the timing of Hogue’s email. It came the day after we ran “Staff admits to being disturbed by dismemberment abortion method.” In her post, Kansans for Life Legislative Director Kathy Ostrowski drew on a paper written 37 years ago by a specialist in “late-term” abortions.
Warren Hern admitted that there were members of his own staff who were disturbed by this particular method of abortion which (in his words) they “view as destructive and violent.” As Kathy wrote
According to Hern, unlike the
staff response to first-trimester suction abortions, dismemberment
abortions cause “significant emotional reactions of medical and
counseling staff” including “physiological symptoms, sleep disturbances,
effects on interpersonal relationships, and moral anguish.” Two
employees reported being preoccupied with the gruesome procedure outside
of work and having disturbing dreams.
Hogue concludes the law needs to be treated “as a major, nationwide threat.” It is.
It is a threat to barbarism, inhumanity, and cruelty beyond description.
Source: NRLC News
No comments:
Post a Comment