“The most significant piece of pro-life legislation to come before the House since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2007″

By Dave Andrusko

Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.), chairs, U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice

Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.), chairs, U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice

Embedded in National Right to Life’s DNA is that NRLC allows the facts to do the talking. Put another way, the nation’s largest single-issue pro-life organization is not prone to exaggeration.

So when NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson says the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797) is “the most significant piece of pro-life legislation to come before the House since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2007,” you know the U.S. House of Representatives will be taking up landmark legislation tomorrow.

H.R. 1797 provides nationwide protection for unborn children who are capable of feeling pain, beginning at 20 weeks fetal age (equivalent to “22 weeks of pregnancy”), the beginning of the sixth month. “Any lawmaker who votes to allow unlimited abortion in the sixth month or later,” Johnson says, “is voting to encourage a continuation of the horrors associated with the likes of Kermit Gosnell.”

As adamantly as pro-abortionists deny this—or attempt to circumvent this truth altogether—that’s what this vote on Tuesday is all about. It will be instructive to see tomorrow how many of the same kinds of evasions—or outright lies—we heard nearly 20 years ago are repeated.

Will they be reminiscent of what we read and heard in 1995-96? Or, more specifically, will they be reported uncritically, just the claims of pro-abortion advocacy groups that partial-birth abortions were very “rare” and performed only in acute medical circumstances?

The murder trial of Kermit Gosnell accomplished more than meting out three consecutive life sentences without chance of parole for a man who operated what the Philadelphia District Attorney labeled a “House of Horrors.” As much as most of the mainstream media buried its collective head, some of the ghastly truth surfaced: he is not—NOT–an aberration. Gosnell is the logical end point.

Stories prior to and even after Gosnell’s convictions have brought home several exceeding ugly truths. To name just three

#1. The Abortion Establishment’s mantra is that Gosnell was a “renegade,” suggesting among other things (does it not?) that they policed their own. They didn’t. Period. Pro-abortionists, such as the National Abortion Federation (to name just one) knew how awful conditions were at his Women’s Medical Society abortion clinic but told no one in authority.

#2. Stories in publications such as the Houston Chronicle (not known for its hospitality to pro-lifers or pro-life sources) have demonstrated that there are abortionists out there who may be every bad as Gosnell.

Subscribeemaillist

Other undercover investigations by Live Action demonstrate a callousness that is staggering, including likening the injection that kills an unborn baby to “a flu shot, or a vaccine, really”—and worse.

As National Right to Life has pointed out (see http://nrlc.cc/16c03ui),

“[T]he same pattern of eagerness to minimize painful late abortions is found in some recent media coverage surrounding the Gosnell trial and revelations regarding other late-abortion practitioners. News stories often assert that late abortions are ‘rare’ and sometimes assert that late abortions usually involve serious medical problems of the mother or fetus. Yet these ‘facts’ are not supported by hard data, and indeed run contrary to much of the evidence that is available.”

#3. Third and finally, the public supports the thinking behind the ban that was approved June 12 by the House Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 20 to 12.

In March The Polling Company conducted a nationwide poll of 1,003 registered voters. The poll 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.

We will update you tomorrow as soon as the vote takes place.