The baseline irrationality of the pro-abortion position

By Dave Andrusko

George Weigel

You could hardly go wrong reading anything produced by theologian and author George Weigel. And that blanket praise extends to a piece that ran today on the webpage of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. (Weigel is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the EPPC and former President.)

Titled “The War on (Little) Women and Other Insanities,” Weigel writes thoughtfully about the absurd contortions that opponents of a bill to ban sex-selection abortion had to go through. Talk about incompatible: beating their chests as “feminists” at the same time they oppose the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. PRENDA  would ban performing or coercing abortions for the purpose of eliminating unborn babies of an undesired sex –-almost always girls.

Although a strong majority backed the measure in May,  the House voted on the bill under “Suspension of the Rules,” which meant a two-thirds vote was  required for passage.

Although Weigel doesn’t mention it, it was not just 168 U.S. House members (almost all of whom were Democrats) who voted against PRENDA. After evading taking a position until the last minute, President Obama also voiced opposition.

As NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said, “It is appalling, but not surprising, that President Obama now stands with the pro-abortion political committees and his Hollywood donors, rather than with the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized in sex-selection abortions.”

You can read Weigel’s fine essay at www.eppc.org/publications/pubid.4785/pub_detail.asp, so let me address two other important conclusions he drew.

When the Supreme Court makes a ghastly mistake (such as Roe), not only is that very difficult to correct, meanwhile “the error tends to seep throughout the entire political process, poisoning everything in its path.”

Weigel proceeds to give examples of how “Roe has distorted everything from free speech to religious freedom to health care legislation (dental insurers are being queried by federal regulators as to whether their coverage includes abortion — dental insurers!).” He adds, “Those distortions confirm that the Court got it fundamentally wrong in 1973.”

That is part of why pro-abortionists defend every inch of the abortion “liberty” with such fury. They fear, and probably correctly so, that if Roe’s underlying irrationality, its multiple illogical leaps in logic, and fragility is exposed, the whole house of cards will collapse.

Or, to borrow from Weigel, if something like PRENDA or the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) were ever to become law and pass constitutional muster, “a thread would be pulled: and that thread might unravel the entire warped tapestry woven out of Roe vs. Wade.”

Weigel offers further examples of the Abortion Establishment’s “take no prisoners” attitude which makes this essay even more worth reading. The URL again is www.eppc.org/publications/pubid.4785/pub_detail.asp

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha