By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. My family and I will be on vacation through September 6. I will occasionally add new items but for the most part we will repost “the best of the best” — the stories our readers have told us they especially liked over the last five months. This first ran June 1.
Emily Crockett, writing at Vox.com today informs us (and I kid you not) that “Pro-life advocates are trying to ban abortion by grossing people out about it.”
She’s referring to the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act which Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards signed just last week. Six states have banned these grotesque abortions: the other five are Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Alabama.
According to Crockett
D&E bans are quickly becoming the latest trend in anti-abortion lawmaking at the state level. They have colorful names like the “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.” And some advocates and lawmakers are using them to focus on the lurid details of later abortion procedures, in hopes of turning more Americans against abortion and making the procedure easier to outlaw or restrict.
“Colorful names,” “lurid details,” “grossing people out…” Wow.
So, what do we have to say about that, fellow pro-lifers? Or is Ms. Crockett’s brilliance so dazzling, we are rendered speechless?
Let’s take her argument apart , which reminds us of the way the abortionist uses steel tools to tear apart a well-developed unborn child. Only we won’t use brute force, but gentle logic.
Of many counters, here are just two.
#1. Crockett tells us that pro-lifers want to “make D&E the new ‘partial-birth abortion,’” admitting (by the way) “[T]he catchy ‘partial-birth’ rebranding by anti-abortion advocates, and the focus on the unpleasant details of the procedure, helped to sway the public against it — and even to sway more people against abortion in general for a time.”
If she means that pro-lifers fully intend to persuade the public that the dismemberment technique is every bit as brutal as partial-birth abortions, I plead guilty. Of course, Crockett believes that both designations are bogus–mere “rebranding”–so it’s up to the likes of Crockett to storm around in high dudgeon.
But pro-lifers also believe that the reasoning on display in the Supreme Court Gonzales decision that upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortions (which are now illegal) is fully applicable to banning a “technique” (such a neutral sounding term) that tears and pulverizes living unborn human beings, rips heads and legs off of tiny torsos as the defenseless child bleeds 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.
#2. There is the usual trotting out of the usual suspects who agree with Crockett, including ACOG which long ago sold its institutional soul to the Abortion Industry. Even though she has the big boys on her side, notice the conditional conclusion: “These bans are catching on, even though they are probably unconstitutional.”
“Probably unconstitutional”?! One could easily make the case–as we have in the pages of NRL News and NRL News Today dozens of times–that the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is completely consonant with the reasoning the justices employed in arriving at the decision they did in the 2007 Gonzales decision.
Dismemberment abortions are more than just “gross.” They are vicious, cruel, barbaric, and not worthy of culture that calls itself civilized.