By Dave Andrusko
If you click on here, you’ll be taken to NRLC’s thorough explanation of what happened Tuesday when the Houses voted 228-196 to pass legislation to provide nationwide protection for unborn children who are capable of feeling pain, beginning at 20 weeks fetal age. There is a wealth of useful information there and links to the kind of background material you’ll need to correct honest mistakes and ward off dishonest chicanery.
There are a number of important considerations addressed, not just about the specifics of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, but also about the crowd that would vote against a law to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling unimaginable pain.
NRLC President Carol Tobias offered three particularly keen insights. (1) “This legislation reflects the views of the overwhelming majority of both men and women” ; (2) “The Obama White House, and all but a handful of House Democrats, fought for essentially unlimited abortion in the sixth month or later, despite growing public awareness of the violence perpetrated by late-term abortionists such as Kermit Gosnell and the pain they inflict on unborn babies”; and (3) it was no surprise that the Obama White House issued a veto threat, “because as a legislator, Barack Obama said he would trust abortionists to take good care of any babies born alive — he would trust the Gosnells, in other words. Obama’s veto threat harkened back to his opposition to the ban on partial-birth abortion, and his attacks on the Supreme Court for upholding the ban on that brutal method of late abortion.”
These are the truths that House (and Senate) Democrats are desperate to obscure by floating non sequiturs about how H.R. 1797 supposedly does not “respect” women. They are keeping company with the likes of Kermit Gosnell, and who wants that public?
Which Democrat, starting with President Obama, wants the American people to know that they would put their faith in a man who not only broke practically every law relating to abortion in Pennsylvania, but did so with impunity? And how/why did that happen? Because nobody bothered for 17 years to see what was going on in his “Baby Charnel House,” even though there was abundant reason to do so. (That included at least one dead woman and scores of women who turned up with botched abortions at a nearby hospital.)
And Gosnell was further empowered when a pro-abortionist became governor. With the change of administration, “officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions,” the grand jury reported.
No wonder when he first went before a judge, long before the actual trial, that Gosnell seemed genuinely stunned to be there, according to reporters. At some level he apparently did not grasp that murdering hundreds of babies that he’d aborted alive (according to the grand jury report) and maiming countless women was something he should be punished for.
The rhetoric of Democrats yesterday went hither and yon, all in the service of talking about anything but the horrific pain unborn children feel beginning at 20 weeks fetal age. They have no other choice. Public opinion is not on their side.
In March The Polling Company conducted a nationwide poll of 1,003 registered voters. It found that 64% would support a law such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — when an unborn baby can feel pain — unless the life of the mother is in danger. Only 30% opposed such legislation. Women voters split 63%-31% in support of such a law, and 63% of independent voters supported it.
One other hugely important point documented by NRLC. H.R. 1797 not only raises the issue of the pain of the unborn and illuminates how simpatico Democrats like Obama are with the likes of the Gosnells of this world. Debate also raises the whole question of how many late abortions there are, specifically 20 weeks fetal age and beyond.
In this very useful discussion, NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson summarized what we can say:
“Nobody has a good handle on how many late abortions are really occurring, but there is growing evidence that they are far more common than most people want to think.”
Those last eleven words are crucial. Most people (understandably) do not want to think any late abortions occur. Gosnell and the debate over the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act have the potential to persuade them to realize—however reluctantly—that these abortions are “far more common” than they want to think possible.
If you have a moment, please also read “Reflections on House Passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act , Part One.”