By Dave Andrusko
My wife offered a particularly keen observation last night. Having safely re-elected pro-abortion President Barack Obama, the Washington Post now occasionally allows mild criticism of The One to appear on its op-ed page. In fact, the Post itself actually offered a couple of harsh words in its lead editorial Tuesday!
I was reminded of Lisa’s insight this morning when I read stories “explaining” the Republican response to New York’s pro-abortion extraordinaire Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s “Reproductive Health Act.” What’s the connection?
Let’s start with the comments of Post columnist Michael Gerson regarding Obama’s position on a current issue of immense controversy. (What the issue is makes no difference; Gerson is establishing a principle for understanding how Obama’s mind works.) Gerson captures the essence of Obama brilliantly in his opening two paragraphs.
“President Obama has grown testy about reporters who have a ‘default position’ that policy debates have two sides. ‘On almost every issue,’ he recently told the New Republic, ‘it’s, ‘Well, Democrats and Republicans can’t agree’ — as opposed to looking at why is it that they can’t agree. Who exactly is preventing us from agreeing?’
“His insight is undeniable. If Republicans didn’t have all those pesky convictions and objections, agreement in Washington would come as surely as a river flows to the sea. This is the best description yet of Obama’s second-term governing vision: the invincible assumption of his own rightness. To him, objectivity requires the recognition that reality has only one side, which the president fully occupies.”
My only quibble is the no doubt unintentional inference that this assurance of his own invincibility struck Obama like a bolt of lightning when he won a second term. In fact, as we have written numerous times in this space, this IS who Obama is: smug, suffused with a sense of his superiority, and utterly intolerant of any opinion that is not his own. He gets away with it because the mainstream press refuses to acknowledge his petulance.
And so it goes for Republican and pro-life opposition to Cuomo’s radical by any measure proposal. While we’ve written about the Reproductive Health Act three times before, it is worth revisiting because the way the legislation is being packaged illustrates the anti-life approach to everything touching on abortion.
First, whatever they do, it’s never broadening or extending abortion. And to point out how obviously untrue that is (to quote Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi) “is not only baseless, but a distortion of the facts.” Nobody, but nobody, should be opposed to this “codification” (a favorite euphemism).
Second, it is often initially cloaked in vagueness. This allows pro-abortionists like Cuomo to lay the groundwork for passage—maybe even with the most nominal of “compromises.” His position, like Obama’s, is not out to sea but in the “mainstream.” Proof. Look how Republicans and pro-lifers “overreact.”
Third, subsume a huge expansion of abortion under a so-called “women’s agenda” that includes “equal pay for equal work” (but not equal rights for unborn children, female or male).
If you were the proverbial man from Mars, you’d think from Cuomo’s stemwinder of a State of the State speech a couple of weeks ago that “abortion rights” are in deep peril. This in a state where abortion’s roots have sunk so deep they are approaching the center of the earth. In a state whose largest city had 87,273 abortions in 2009, “meaning that 41 percent of all pregnancies that didn’t end in miscarriage were ended by abortions,” as New York Post columnist Seth Lipsky explained this week. “In some ZIP codes and among African-Americans, the abortion rate reaches a ghastly 60 percent.”
What does the Reproductive Health Act promise? According to New York State Right to Life it would, for starters,
*Remove criminal penalties even from unlawful abortions;
*Prevent an unborn child who is the intended victim of a crime from being recognized as a victim;
*Prevent any limitation on use of taxpayer funds to curtail New York’s Medicaid policy of paying for abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy;
*Deceitfully redefine pregnancy as beginning at implantation – not fertilization;
*Falsely redefine fetal (child) viability and
*Unleash new assaults on the consciences of those who oppose participating in abortion – health care professionals, hospitals, hospital residents, and health insurance providers.
“I don’t understand what the issue is,” State Sen. Dean Skelos told the Associated Press this week. “In New York state, you have Medicaid spending on abortion, there is no parental consent, there is no parental notification, you can pretty much have an abortion any time you want … I think it’s really a non-issue.”
It’s a “non-issue” if you are among the overwhelming majority of Americans who are not in favor of abortion on demand. It’s also a non-issue if you think it is outrageous to commander your tax dollars to pay for abortions in the 8th and 9th months, which DO take place.
But it is very MUCH an issue if you believe that there can never, ever be enough abortions; if you believe it is a occasion for unbridled joy whenever you can stick it to pro-lifers, however inhuman the action; if you believe in abortion on demand without apology; and if you believe the more dead babies, the better.
If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.