Vacuuming out the truth
By Dave Andrusko
I hope that you have already read the very important Action Alert from NRLC—that next Tuesday the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on legislation that would end the current legal policy allowing abortion, for any reason, until the moment of birth in the nation’s capital.
NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson explained the historic significance of the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803):”This roll call will be a landmark–the House has never before voted on the question of whether to endorse legal abortion for any reason until birth.”
If you haven’t responded to the request for action, please do so immediately and pass the Alert along to your pro-life friends and family.
Let me shift gears here to talk about an editorial yesterday from the New York Times. As is often the case with those who hew most feverishly to the abortion-on-demand line, the Times’ remarks are unintentionally revealing.
The headline to the Times editorial kind of gives the game away: “Anti-Abortionists on Trial.” The “trial” is a reference to a pro-abortion challenge to what the Times describes as an “extreme Arizona anti-abortion law” to keep it from taking effect next week.
That “extreme” law is an Arizona law that is intended to limit abortions after 18 weeks fetal age.
The editorial quotes from the exchange between Janet Crepps, a lawyer from the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Judge James Teilborg of the United States District Court in Phoenix. To the editorial page of the Times, there is nothing to discuss. The law is blatantly unconstitutional, Really? We’ll return to that another day.
Having decided that “Judge Teilborg should not find it hard to make the right call,” the Times observed, however, that ”the plaintiffs could not have been encouraged by his line of questioning on Wednesday morning.” Judge Teilborg asked “irrelevant questions,” we’re told.
Like what? Like “about which abortion procedures might be involved and the relative frequency of each.”
Remember we are talking about babies no younger than 18 weeks after fertilization—and, of course, older. No abortion “provider,” no pro-abortion attorney wants to talk about the D&E technique that is most commonly used at this stage. It is so brutal, so ghastly, and so painful that it can rip away calluses on even the most hardened hearts.
But it’s the next two paragraphs in the editorial that really snaps the reader to attention. According to the Times
“Then he lectured her for what he suggested, wrongly, was a lack of compassion for the unborn. He said he had read the plaintiffs’ affidavits and had found that they ‘reflect profound compassion and concern for their patients, the women, and presumably the fathers.’ However, he added, ‘I didn’t find anywhere in those affidavits any expression of concern by the plaintiffs’ positions for the unborn child — or even a hint of concern on their part.
“’Given that silence on that part,’ the judge said, ‘and given the silence in your own presentation, doesn’t that underscore the legitimacy of the state’s regulatory action out of concern for the unborn child?’
In case you missed that, or were so stunned you thought you had misread, “Then he lectured her for what he suggested, wrongly, was a lack of compassion for the unborn.”
Take a minute to go to “Thank goodness I can still cringe”. I talk about how a former abortionist pulls no punches in telling you what happens to the baby in a D&E abortion. (You can watch his testimony at www.youtube.com/watch?v=t–MhKiaD7c&feature=youtu.be).
If what those babies endure can be interpreted as “compassion for the unborn,” then we have reached the point where words mean nothing. Pro-abortionists will have vacuumed out every trace of truth.
It is, of course, our job to never, ever let that happen. And we won’t.
Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to email@example.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com