By Dave Andrusko
When does the passage of a piece of pro-life legislation go from being, so to speak, an “outlier” to becoming a trend? No one can say definitively, of course, but I think the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is now much closer to the latter than the former.
As of this morning five states have passed a law which is in every sense of the word a piece of commonsense legislation. Alabama joined Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Mississippi.
Louisiana is poised to become number six. (See here.)
The bill has also been introduced in Idaho, Missouri, and Nebraska, and is expected to be introduced in several other states.
This in spite of a massive campaign of disinformation and misinformation waged by the Abortion Industry and its legion of media supporters.
It was truly grounds for celebration when Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed the bill. Alabama is a pro-life state, but (like their counterparts in other states) opponents mislead the public in ways too numerous to enumerate.
So let’s be clear: why the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act and what does it accomplish?
For starters, it operates like a Stop Sign, saying there are some limits to the brutality that is abortion on demand.
Passage says it is not okay to crush, tear and pulverize living unborn human beings, to rip heads and legs off of tiny torsos, and watch a defenseless child bleed to death. It is a measure of how trafficking in abortion dehumanizes practitioners and defenders alike that their default position is to tell us that all “surgery” is gross.
Back when the debate over dismemberment abortions was first heating up, veteran abortionist Carole Joffe recycled this threadbare argument in the form of a letter to the editor of the New York Times.
One sentence captures the blasé dismissal that is at the core of what the debate over dismemberment abortions is all about:
To be sure, in the abstract, the details of dilation and evacuation abortions, as with many other medical procedures, are upsetting to many.
“In the abstract” is, of course, the heart and soul (so to speak) of the pro-abortionist’s response. That along with the equally misleading lots of “medical procedures are upsetting to many” defense.
If they can keep what’s happens–and to whom–in the realm of the abstract (kind of like “fetus” rather than baby or “disarticulation” rather than tearing a baby apart), then who is going to be bothered?
And if eviscerating a defenseless human being is no different than, say, excising a tumor, well, who’s against taking out a cancer, even if it is “upsetting”?
But as we have written so many times, what else are they going to say? (The zanies don’t bother with misleading people. They tell you frankly that you kill unborn babies because you want to and because you can.)
One defense you can employ, by the way, is to literally remove the baby from the picture. As we wrote previously, go to page 19 (which is page 172 of Chapter Eleven) of a National Abortion Federation textbook whose subtitle is “Comprehensive Abortion Care.”
(It’s reproduced at nrlc.org.)
What do you see? The forceps are opening and closing over….nothing. There is no baby, not even any “pregnancy elements” in sight.
A NAF textbook is showing an abortion but there’s nothing/nobody being aborted.
Lesson? They are so terrified that the visual truth about dismemberment abortions will get out, they won’t even show them to their own kind!
To return to where I began, the truth is gradually seeping out, like flowers poking through the cracks in a sidewalk. And as it does, more and more states will pass the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.