Striking a nerve: The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act

By Dave Andrusko

Stop-Dismemberment55reYou didn’t need a degree in nuclear physics to know that the New York Times would go apoplectic because Kansas became the first in the nation to pass The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. Before I talk about “Kansas Tries to Stamp Out Abortion,” let me offer some examples of the Times’ hot-button verbiage.

Kansas as “ground zero in the war to criminalize all abortions”; “hard-line conservative”; “medically inaccurate lectures”; “duplicitous restrictions on abortion”; language that “aims for maximum shock value”; lawmakers who “have imposed their own moral judgments,” etc., etc., und zu weiter, and und zu weiter.

Just a couple of responses. The first is one we often talk about: the shoe-on-the-other-foot test. When pro-abortion states were busy not only dismantling every protective pro-life law, but also finding a “right” to abortion in the state constitution and coercing taxpayers into paying for abortions, does anyone recall the Times using “Ground zero”?

Hardly. It was the Progressives’ Nirvana where untold numbers of unborn babies would be sliced and diced and mangled and butchered, all to the delight of the august editorial board of the New York Times.

Second, would Kansas–and pro-lifers in general–like to eliminate all abortions? Sure, just as the Times wants unlimited abortions at home and the killing ethos exported overseas, as much as possible paid for by you and me.

But–and we’ve talked about this a lot–every time a pro-abortion outlet like the Times comes even close to reporting the actual language of SB 95, it is a huge victory for us and an even larger setback for the forces of obfuscation and dishonesty. Consider this from yesterday’s editorial:

The anti-abortion activists in Kansas avoided actual medical terminology in drafting Senate Bill 95, which refers to the banned procedure as a “dismemberment abortion.” The law’s language aims for maximum shock value, describing “clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors” or other instruments that “slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”

Thank you, editorial board, New York Times.

So is the point that these instruments aren’t used in dismemberment abortions? No, they obviously are.

Is the point that in a dismemberment abortion, the abortionist doesn’t “slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off?”

This is exactly how any layman would describe what happens to the child. But to the tender sensibilities of the Times’ editorial board (and to the advantage of the abortion industry), the preferred language is whatever the medical term is for crushing a kid’s head or slicing off her arm or ripping off her leg. When the child’s death is wrapped up in such antiseptic language, it’s as if it really doesn’t happen.

So neutral, so calming, so capable of distancing the abortionist (and his legion of apologists) from what he is doing to defenseless unborn children.

Why does the language of The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act strike a nerve?

Because it forces pro-abortionists on the defensive.

And why is that?

Because it is true.