More about the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and why anything goes to pro-abortionists
By Dave Andrusko
Earlier today NRL News Today posted a notice that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a voting session for Tuesday on an NRLC-backed bill that would protect unborn children in the federal District after they have reached 20 weeks fetal age, based on their capacity to experience pain. The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is patterned on an NRLC-originated model bill that has already been enacted in seven states.
This would be important in any circumstance. H.R. 3803 is NRLC’s top priority, which means that abortion advocates are training their rhetoric guns on a bill that, by any reasonable light, ought to be a prohibition virtually anyone could agree to. Not so, of course. Let me talk about two related stories.
The Hill newspaper ran a story Monday about the bill’s “markup” tomorrow. It tells the reader several things.
That National Right to Life carries considerable weight. As Emma Dumain explains
“That the National Right to Life Committee has made the bill its top legislative priority for this Congress might have something to do with the alacrity with which it has moved.
“The influential organization has pledged to score any House floor vote on the measure and, with it being an election year, has also suggested it will be paying close attention to who signs on as a co-sponsor.
“’You will see on our website, featured very prominently on our home page, a link to a graphic listing all the co-sponsors,’ [NRLC Legislative Director Douglas] Johnson said. ‘We don’t do this for every bill.’”
That, rhetorically at least, pro-abortionists–NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Abortion Federation, and their congressional allies– insist a debate on the measure will redound to their benefit. Vowed Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate who represents the District of Columbia in the U.S. House of Representatives, “This markup was fully expected, and we are fully prepared,” adding, “If Republicans want to make abortion the big issue, we’re ready for them.”
Really? Surely at most levels this is bravado on steroids. When you get down out of the puffy clouds and into the grimy abortion clinic—which is what this bill does in no uncertain terms—you cannot avoid that there is NO abortion law in the District of Columbia and that very large, very mature unborn babies are ripped apart.
At another press conference a while back Norton hyperventilated with “outrage when our citizens are used as guinea pigs by members of the House and Senate to showcase their pet political issues.” National Right to Life Legislative Director Douglas Johnson observed at the time, “Anyone who tears a leg off a guinea pig in the District of Columbia can be sent to prison for five years. It should not be lawful to do to a pain-capable unborn child what it is a crime to do to a guinea pig.”
You get the point, which is always the same point with pro-abortionists. Abortion is NEVER about what happens to a helpless unborn child; never about treating the tiniest Americans as disposable; and never, ever about justice for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Then there is the other story, demonstrating (as we’ve often written) that to the dyed-in-the-wool pro-abortionist there is not, cannot be an unacceptable abortion. If you are a non-combatant, this may sound outlandish: of course, there are limits. But there aren’t.
Robin Marty is a Senior Political Reporter for the militantly pro-abortion site RH Reality Check. Ms. Marty ran a piece yesterday that literally has to be read to be believed (www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/08/idaho-trial-over-unlawful-abortion-could-have-national-repercussions).
She uses the story of an Idaho woman whose RU486-induced abortion is almost beyond imagination. I will spare you the gruesome details of her abortion when she was 20 weeks (or more) pregnant and what Jennie Linn McCormack allegedly did with her baby’s remains.
Oddly enough, pro-lifers are supposed to be put on the defensive by her case. By that I mean, although the specifics will make everyone this side of people like Ms. Marty blanch, to Marty, pro-lifers care nothing about anything except scoring points, a cynicism which will turn off non-partisans. She sneers, “McCormack’s case may be filled with the type of gruesome details that make those who oppose abortion salivate.”
Not so, which of course, she knows. This case is filled with the kind of gruesome details that if the famous “mushy middle” were to know about, might push them into the pro-life column. Which does not stop Marty from arguing, however, that if anyone outside the readers of Rhreality Check is repulsed by the sickening details, it’s beside the point and probably their fault for being squeamish.
Marty makes it explicit: “The reality is that McCormack is the reason why Roe exists.” What does Roe mean? That Anything—ANYTHING—goes.
Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha