The unoriginal reasons for opposing commonsensical pro-life legislation

 

By Dave Andrusko

Pain-Capable_SC_GraphicI’m told by local pro-lifers that the Florence Morning News is not exactly a star-studded publication, but I believe its editorial assault on proposed pro-life legislation in South Carolina is worth considering. Not because of any particular originality, but because of its utter representativeness.

The editorial takes out specifically after the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which has passed the House, and the requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges with a local hospital.

Both drive pro-abortionists crazy, both make perfect sense. There is an abundance of medical evidence that by 20 weeks, the unborn child can experience pain. Why wouldn’t anyone, even many who describe themselves as “pro-choice,” agree that abortion in these circumstances is unacceptable?

In fact, they do! That is why such legislation has passed in ten states and in the United States House of Representatives.

Likewise, only in the alternative universe of abortion advocates, where there is never a medical emergency at an abortion clinic, would it be unacceptable to require that the abortionist be able to follow his “patient” if she needs to be taken to a nearby hospital.

The editorial leans it opposition against several slender reeds. For example, that there hasn’t been adequate discussion. Well, there is never “discussion,” from their point of view, and (if you use the history in many states), a key reason there is not waves of hearings is that pro-abortionists keep the measures bottled up until the last possible minute.

But in this case, the editorial is wildly off the mark. There were two public hearings before the House Judiciary Subcommittee at which there was prominent discussion and input from numerous members of the public on both sides of the issue. And there were literally hours of debate on the floor of the House which ultimately ended in an 84-29 vote in favor of protecting unborn children who can feel pain.

Or “It is not incumbent upon government to force its constituents to accept certain beliefs or values. It is to make sure all of those beliefs and values are fairly represented.” The editorial slyly then talks about “blue laws,” laws which forbid certain behavior on Sunday, as if forbidding buying alcohol on Sunday is equivalent to (or has the same motivation as) saving babies from having their heads bashed in and their arms torn off.

But in their more sober moments, no doubt the editorial board might concede that all laws encode some belief or value. Geez.

Finally, “If anti-abortionists want to outlaw it [“it” can refer to anything the editorial board doesn’t approve of], they should engage the public and openly discuss the issue based on its merits instead of silently chipping away at it.”

Just as pro-abortionists did in the 1960s when they insisted they were only “reforming” state laws on abortion, rather than trying to overturn them in all 50 states?

Pro-lifers are quite candid: we want to save all babies. But that is not a goal we can achieve now. We save as many babies as we can and in so doing educate the public to why every unborn baby deserves the same legal protection the rest of us do.