RSS Feed

Posts Tagged ‘Abortion’

  1. Wendy Davis v. Roe?

    July 10, 2013 by Hannah Jane

    Note: this is a re-working of a post which I’d published earlier and then decided to pull for further editing.  For any of you who are subscribed via email or RSS, I apologize for the (sort-of) double posting. 

    You may have heard of state Senator Wendy Davis’ (D-TX) filibuster, where she talked for over twelve hours during Texas’ special session in an effort to block SB 5, an omnibus bill which would regulate certain aspects of abortion.  As I understand it, the bill had previously been passed in both the Texas Senate and the House, but the Senate version had been passed without the section which would make abortion after 20 weeks illegal – so this was a concurrence vote.

    I’m not going to go into great detail about what happened – it should be easy for you to go look it up if you don’t know much about it.  Or you can just read about it here, or here, or here, or here. Instead, I’m going to ask what no one else seems to be asking:  What makes this bill so pro-life?

    At first glance, restricting abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy may seem to be pro-life, yet the section clearly states that:

    “[R]estricting elective abortions at or later than 20
    weeks post-fertilization, as provided by this Act, does not impose
    an undue burden or a substantial obstacle on a woman’s ability to
    have an abortion… the woman has adequate time to decide whether to have an abortion in the first 20 weeks after fertilization”

    (The reasoning behind the date of 20 weeks is that, “substantial medical evidence recognizes that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain by not later than 20 weeks after fertilization”.)

    Now, no matter how much feminists may scream and holler, they can’t deny the fact that even Roe v. Wade puts a limit on when one may murder their child.  In the case of Roe v. Wade, it is somewhere around 40 weeks, give or take.  You can’t have the doctor murder your baby after she is born.  That’s illegal.

    For pr0-choice folks to be consistent in their logic and reasoning, they should support a woman’s “right to choose” in all three of the following (entirely hypothetical) scenarios:

    A:  “I really didn’t intend to be a mother at this point.  I’ve twenty-five weeks along, and having doubts about whether or not to continue this pregnancy. My finances are tight, how will I care for a baby?  I’d always planned to wait until the age of thirty or so before having to worry about kids – I really don’t feel that this is a good time.  It’s not convenient, and I want to finish college first.  Besides, it’s my right, right?”

    B: “I’ve had baby Johnny for three weeks now, and I just can’t handle it anymore.  I’ve got the postpartum blues, and he wakes me up every night with his wailing.  I did some math today and realized just how much his diapers are going to cost.  He needs constant care, is incredibly demanding, and he is draining every once of my energy.  I really don’t want to do this anymore.  It’s probably best for me to ask the doctor to give him a lethal injection at our next check-up.”

    C: “I’ve been a loving, patient mother for seventeen years, but I don’t know if I can give Suzy the care she deserves.  Not only has she been rebelling a bit lately, she’s also been looking at colleges, and I’ve realized that there is no way I’ll be able to send her to one.  I want to give my daughter the very best, but I really don’t think that I can right now.  I’ll probably be able to get my younger kids through college if I save up now, but since I can’t give Suzy the very best… I think I’ll take steps to terminate her life.”

    Obviously, even the most ardent feminists don’t go around approving of scenarios “B” and “C”  – but they do fight tooth-and-nail if someone says that scenario “A” is horribly wrong, and should also be illegal.  With their logic, they cannot clearly state why “B” and “C” are so terribly wrong without also condemning “A”.

    The bill says that 20 weeks is a long enough period of time for a woman to decide whether or not to get an abortion.  Roe v. Wade says that 40+- weeks is long enough.  The debate, then, is not one of whether or not you may get an abortion, but rather, how long it should take for a women to know whether or not she wishes to murder her baby.

    The rest of the bill, in my opinion, is completely in line with the professed ideology of Roe v. Wade.  According to prochoice.org:

    “In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year. Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.”

    “Many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.”

    “The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical practitioners. This led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death.”

    In other words, the fact that abortion was illegal resulted in it being incredibly dangerous, and making it legal also made it safe.  I’ve read SB 5 through several times, and I can’t figure out what part of it is supposedly contesting Roe v. Wade.

    Several pro-choice people have been protesting this part of the bill:

    [T]he minimum standards for an abortion facility must be equivalent to the minimum standards adopted under Section 243.010 for ambulatory surgical centers.

    Why are they protesting this?  It’s simply an attempt to keep abortion safe, right?  Isn’t that what they want?  A safe way to murder the unborn, isn’t that their goal?  Why does this result in Sen. Davis filibustering it?  Why did the hashtag “#standwithwendy” go viral among the “pro-choice” community? Why did the crowd erupt in protest when lawmakers tried to end the filibuster?

    “If SB 5 becomes law, the vast majority of the abortion clinics in the Lone Star state will be forced to close their doors — potentially dropping the state’s abortion providers down from 47 to just five”, one site warns.  Yet, I can’t find anything in the bill which could be considered radical in its safety restrictions in any way.

    To require abortion facilities to be held to the same standards as other surgical centers?  To ensure that a doctor is present when an abortion pill is administered?  To make sure that follow-up care is given, that the woman has the proper phone numbers to call if something goes wrong?  This isn’t pro-life, people.  It’s supposed to be why Roe v. Wade was enacted in the first place – it’s supposed to make abortion safe.

    If forty-something clinics in Texas would be forced to shut down, the question should be that of whyPerhaps abortion, even when legal, isn’t “safe”?  Or maybe Gosnell’s “house of horrors” isn’t an isolated case?

    Will the repercussions of this bill being passed (and, it seems inevitable that it will eventually be passed) end up saving at least a few lives?  Probably.  Does that make it “pro-life”?  No, not really… though I and many others can rejoice if it results in even one life being spared, it really isn’t all that radical.


  2. “Safe” Murder?

    April 29, 2013 by Hannah Jane

    [Abortion-rights groups] say that Dr. Gosnell was a rogue practitioner, and that if abortion is further restricted, more women will be driven to clinics like his, which prosecutors called a “house of horrors.”
    -from NYTimes.com

    “Restrictions really work to hinder access to safe abortion,”
    -Dayle Steinberg, president of Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania.

    “Safe abortion”.  Ponder those words for a moment.  Since when is murder ever safe?

    Let’s come to a logical conclusion here, folks.  If it’s okay to murder babies, if we need to avoid restrictions so as to keep their mothers safe… then, logically, it’s safest to murder a baby after he’s been born.  After all, then the mother cannot possibly be harmed during the “procedure”, right?

    Or… maybe not.  That would be murder, after all, and there are restrictions on that.  You’re allowed to kill a person if they’re over here, but not when they’re over there.  Those pesky restrictions…

    If abortion is acceptable, then Gosnell’s main fault is merely that he didn’t kill babies quickly enough.  To say that it is okay to slaughter a baby one moment, but that it is not okay the next, is utterly  and completely delusional.

    One who says that Gosnell should be on trial for murder cannot turn around a moment later and say that abortion is normally fine.   That’s ridiculousness.

    Yes, Gosnell’s clinic was a “house of horrors”.  As is every abortion “clinic”.  Since when is murder anything other than horrifying?  Although the facts surfacing at the Gosnell trial about how abortions were preformed there are easily regarded as more disgusting than “regular” abortion, a baby dies either way.

    Murder is murder, whether it takes place in a posh, sanitized clinic at 1:00 PM or in a filthy, run-down hovel at 1:01 PM.


  3. Slaughtering the Innocent

    January 26, 2013 by Hannah Jane

    On January 21st, Obama delivered his second inaugural address.  Full of fluffy platitudes, vague boasts on his alleged accomplishments, and socialistic statements, it wasn’t exactly something I enjoyed listening to.  Nevertheless, one sentence made me pause:

    “Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.”

    And I wonder, what about the thousands of children who are slaughtered daily?

    We mourn for the twenty children who perished in the Newtown shooting.  What of the 3,000 who died yesterday?

    It is difficult for us to comprehend how the Nazis could be so brutal as to murder millions.  “Never again,” we emphatically declare.  But what of the holocaust going on right now?

    Would it Bother Us More if They Used Guns? | Abort73.com

    For forty years we’ve tolerated the murder of these innocents.  Approximately fifty-five million lives have already been lost, and the number climbs with every passing day.  “Safe from harm”?  Only if you’ve already been born, apparently.

    Rather than giving these helpless babies the protection of the law, we have watched as their innocent blood is shed.   We have stripped them of their right to life in the name of “women’s rights”.   Women’s RIGHTS?!  Since when is murder a right?  

    On September 11, 2001, approximately 3,000 Americans perished.  Even today, over 11 years later, most people can recall exactly where they were when they heard and what their reaction was.  All across the country, people reacted with shock, anger, and grief.

    Yesterday, on January 25, 2013, approximately 3,ooo Americans perished.  Their deaths did not make any headlines, and few really took any notice.  All across the country, people went on with their lives as if nothing had happened.

    Every day, the number of those slaughtered keeps rising.

     

    When will this holocaust end? 


  4. 9/10/01

    September 11, 2011 by Hannah Jane

    Re-posted and revised from the archives.

    On September 10, 2001, about 3 thousand innocent Americans were murdered. They had absolutely no say over the matter.  Our nation lost 3 thousand people that day – people who may have found a cure for cancer, or become war heroes or just become one of the ordinary people that make our country what it is. They could have been so much.

    But they were murdered on that day, exactly 10 years ago.

    Tomorrow, almost everyone in our nation will recount 9/11 – the death of almost 3 thousand Americans. Adult Americans, that is.

    What happened on 9/11 was a tragedy.

    But why do we not grieve the innocent babies that are, through abortion, murdered every single day?

    The number is nearly the same.

    The victims are even more helpless then the victims in the twin towers were.

    Since when do those out of the womb matter more then those inside?

    Every day, it seems.

    What if every day was a repeat of 9/11/01?  What if three thousand adult Americans were being murdered every day?  How would we react?  Would it be with callous indifference, or with outrage?

    But ever since 1973 A.D., citizens of America have had this happening to them daily.  Approximately three thousand of their number are wiped out. Every day.  Of every week.  Of every month.  Of every year.

    “Terrorists will kill over 3,000 Americans today, right here. It will not make the news nor trouble most Christians. They’re just babies.” -R.c. Sproul Jr.


  5. The tragedy of 9/10/01

    September 10, 2009 by Hannah Jane

    On September 10, 2001, around 3 thousand innocent Americans were murdered. They had absolutely no say over the matter.  Our nation lost 3 thousand people that day – people who may have found a cure for cancer, or become war heroes or just become one of the ordinary people that make our country what it is. They could have been so much.

    But they were murdered on that day, exactly 8 years ago.

    Tomorrow, almost everyone in our nation will recount 9/11 – the death of almost 3 thousand Americans. Adult Americans, that is.

    What happened on 9/11 was a tragedy.

    But why do we not grieve the innocent babies that are, through abortion, murdered every single day.

    The number is the same.

    The victims are even more helpless then the victims in the twin towers were.

    Since when do those out of the womb matter more then those inside?