By Dave Andrusko
A friend was kind enough to pass along a link to a video produced by the pro-abortion-to-the-gills Texas Tribune newspaper. The obvious intent was to stir up righteous indignation that a woman and her fiancé had to wait a few days to abort their child. How and why did that happen?
On Thursday a three-judge panel restored most of what a federal appeals court judge had stricken last Monday from Texas’ HB2 and made the law operational. (Pro-abortionists have asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay. See “Supreme Court will not hear Oklahoma chemical abortifacient case; pro-abortionists ask High Court to stop enforcement of parts of Texas’s HB2 while appeal goes forward”)
In the context of the Texas Tribune video, the part of the law that Marni Evans and John Lockhart were complaining about was the requirement that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic.
Let me make three observations. First, it’d be hard to pick a less sympathetic couple to illustrate the need to have (as Ms. Evans said) her “constitutional rights restored.” She’s in her late 30s and he is in early 40s. We are not talking about impetuous adolescents. And they are obviously educated. Just guessing, I suspect they know where babies come from.
Second, as one responder noted (the responses were far better than the self-indulgent, self-pitying whine we watched), “Is this video meant to be funny? Because it was hilarious! From the dramatic pauses for the info graphics to the contrived dialogue hitting on every ‘outrage cliche,’ this ‘interview’ was just ridiculous.”
And third, it is not entirely clear (at least not to me) but the “delay” appears to have been a couple of days. Her local abortion provider said they wouldn’t/couldn’t do the abortion, she books a flight to Seattle (Seattle?), and then quickly finds a Planned Parenthood in Austin, Texas, who will abort her 6-7 week old unborn baby.
According to the boyfriend, because of the delay she had to undergo a “more invasive procedure.” Huh? But it gets worse, according to Marni.
Can you imagine her predicament? If there are only a couple of local abortionists who have admitting privileges (let’s assume for the sake of discussion that’s true), well then lots of pregnant women would come there and Marni might have to wait another 4-6 HOURS before she can off her baby. The injustice of it all!
To return to Point One for a second, the boyfriend just looks annoyed. (There’s so much “stress” on everyone, he tells us, including poor old John.) But if you didn’t know better, the woman is so passionless you’d wonder if this is all a ruse.
For example, it’s like she’s reading from a prepared script. They supposedly talked about “the pros and cons.” We don’t hear anything that immediately comes across as a “pro” but lots of psychobabble that justifies an abortion:
The “health of their relationship” and “how long have we been together” and “Do we have enough built as a foundation to create a loving, happy, healthy family.”
We’re told more than once they didn’t make the decision “lightly,” although there is absolutely nothing in their body language or what they say that suggests that was really the case.
What does come across clearly is that they want to use this terrible, horrible, monstrosity of an inconvenience to encourage people to elect “pro-choice” legislators. My guess is the more people who see this childish couple complain, the fewer “pro-choice” legislators we will see elected in Texas.