Editor’s note. This editorial appears in the October digital edition of National Right to Life News at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsOct2015.pdf. Please be sure to share this, and the other stories and commentaries, using your social media contacts.
Can it be more obvious? The walls are closing in on the closed pro-abortion mind. As evidence, let me offer three recent examples, three of many.
Just to be clear, what I do I mean by the closed pro-abortion mind? I mean robotic answers so bizarre and disconnected from reality it resembles answering “Sunny and 70” to the question “What day of the week is it?”
It also involves a kind of one-upmanship that if we did likewise, we’d be denounced to high heaven. And a kind of intellectual surrender masked as smug superiority.
Each of the three answers is whacky in its own peculiar way.
Let’s begin with the exchange last week between Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) and Ms. Caroline Frederickson, at the House Judiciary Committee’s second hearing on “Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining Abortion Procedures and Medical Ethics at the Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider.”
Forbes showed a brief excerpt from the first undercover video published online by the Center for Medical Progress in which investigators talked with Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director for medical services for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Her remarks were, in a word, nauseous. Her off-hand cruelty is utterly amazing.
“Is that procedure too brutal for you?” Forbes asked Frederickson.
“Ultimately this is an attack on women’s…” Forbes moved on before she could say (yet again) reproductive rights.
“Too brutal or not?”
“Abortion should be safe and legal…”
“Is that procedure too brutal?”
“I am not a doctor and I can’t…”
Forbes then asked if Frederickson had a small dog that needed to be put to sleep
“Would you think it would be too brutal for the veterinarian to crush that dog in two different places?”
“I trust a woman and her doctor…”
Earth to Frederickson ….
Example Two: The ever-bewildering chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl.) who in an interview with MRC-TV adamantly refused to acknowledge that her own children were human when she was carrying them.
MRC TV: You have three children, correct?
Wasserman Schultz: I do.
MRC TV: How old are they?
Wasserman Schultz: I have twin 16-year-olds and a 12-year-old.
MRC TV: In your opinion, were they human beings before they were born?
Wasserman Schultz: You know, I believe that every woman has the right to make their own reproductive choices.
MRC TV: But what did you believe about your children?
Wasserman Schultz: That I had the right to make my own reproductive choices, which I was glad to have and which I was proud to have.
MRC TV: So were they human beings? Just yes or no.
Wasserman Schultz: They’re human beings today, and I’m glad I had the opportunity to make my own reproductive choices, as – a right that every woman has and should maintain.
“Human beings today” and….what were they when she carrying them?
Example Three could only have come from Wasserman Schultz or House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) In this case, it was the latter whose combination of arrogance and condescension is matchless. (Thanks go out to JoAnna Wahlund, writing at secularprolife.org, for doing a wonderful analysis.)
This exchange again is over Biology 101 which pro-abortionists insist needs to be either (ahem) revised or, better yet, excised from the curriculum.
Pelosi was pontificating as she always does at her weekly briefing when, as Wahlund writes, “At one point, a CNS news reporter asked, ‘In reference to funding for Planned Parenthood: Is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?’ Pelosi responded: ‘Why don’t you take your ideological questions—I don’t, I don’t have—.’”
“Ideological”? What a cowardly evasion!
Later Pelosi played what she no doubt considers her trump card.
“…I am a devout practicing Catholic, a mother of five children. When my baby was born, my fifth child, my oldest child was six years old.” But as Wahlund observes, what has that to do with anything.
“He asked her a scientific question and she responded with, ‘I’m a Catholic with five kids, so I know more about this than you.’ Um, what? That makes no sense. …I happen to be a ‘devout practicing Catholic’ myself. Unlike Pelosi, I actually believe and practice what the Catholic Church teaches regarding abortion, a teaching of which Pelosi, who claims to be both “devout” and “practicing,” is ignorant. … In fact, I’m a mother of nine children (five born, one unborn, three lost to miscarriage). My oldest is 10, and will be 11 when his/her youngest sibling will arrive. By Pelosi’s logic, I actually know more than she does about this subject.”
The common denominator is that the questions and the answers are like two trains passing in the night. Only one train has its lights off.
The other chooses to operate in the dark, chooses to pretend that we know no more about the unborn passenger than we did 50 years ago, and chooses to burrow its head deep into the ground lest it be forced to acknowledge the truth.
There is never a good day to be pro-abortion. But knowing all we do today, to regurgitate the same old nonsense is not only morally and ethically bereft, it is also approaching intellectual suicide.