By Dave Andrusko
By now I shouldn’t be but I am invariably amused when a pro-abortion scribe announces that this or that pro-life initiative is too “extreme.” Sometimes this is followed by an almost audible (and self-delusional) sigh (“Whew, good thing that is so unpalatable to the public”), other times you can just sense that they know better.
Robin Marty tells us that “D&E Bans May Be the New Wave of Abortion Restrictions” but laws–already passed in Kansas and Oklahoma and about to be proposed elsewhere–are obviously unconstitutional. We’ll see about that.
To be more specific, Marty is talking about the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. Here’s a description of the law that appeared in (of all places) the hyper-pro-abortion New York Times. The Times editorial actually quoted from the law:
The anti-abortion activists in Kansas avoided actual medical terminology in drafting Senate Bill 95, which refers to the banned procedure as a “dismemberment abortion.” The law’s language aims for maximum shock value, describing “clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors” or other instruments that “slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”
Ignore the nonsense about not using “actual medical terminology.” That’s simply code for the authors’ unwillingness to go along with the Times agenda which is to hide the brutality of dismemberment abortions in a protective sheath of medicalese.
The issue is, rather, whether those are the instruments used in the attack and is this what happens to whatever it is you care to call the victim. The answer to both is yes.
Back to Marty.
She tells her readers that “Nebraska is also prepping to introduce a ban,” and then adds a quotation from pro-life state Senator Tommy Garrett given to KETV about the possibility that the law would be challenged:
“Everything that has any substance is always legally challenged. Bring it on. I think the people of Nebraska, when they see the details behind this and what’s going on here, they’ll standby this.”
Well….yes. Pro-lifers believe there is an awakening taking place and that it is pushed along at warp speed by the attention the dismemberment abortion bills are gathering and the pit-of-the-stomach revulsion to the scandalously dehumanizing language of assorted Planned Parenthood officials captured in undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress.
Marty is simply wrong when she states categorically that this has little to do with enacting bans on dismemberment abortions. Sponsors are quite confident they can pass the law but know that any pro-life initiative will be challenged in court and oftentimes be overturned by unsympathetic judges.
Passage, in other words, is the first step in a long journey that will one day end of the steps of the United States Supreme Court.
Part of the purpose of passing laws is to educate. And Marty is correct that pro-lifers are intent on
forcing a debate over the medical terms and details of termination a pregnancy, with the hope that discussing procedures in graphic detail will create a change in public perception about whether or not abortion should be legal or acceptable.
Except “graphic” does not mean misrepresenting what happens. That would be both wrong and unnecessary.
Just listen to what assorted Planned Parenthood officialdom and owners of “tissue” (which includes intact organ)procurement businesses say on the CMP videos. Or watch lab technicians holding up, manipulating, and laughing about the body parts of aborted babies.
Do we think that will “create change in public perception”? You bet.