The only “choice” pro-abortionists fight for is the choice to kill

By Dave Andrusko

Every once in a while a true-blue pro-lifer will sincerely inquire if I do not exaggerate the extent to which the abortion community is dedicated to multiplying the number of dead babies up to and including ensuring that babies who survive an abortion go untreated.

I don’t.

I could offer a comprehensive list of commonsense protections they oppose without a moment’s hesitation. At one end a ban on abortions that take the lives of babies capable of experiencing the horrific agony of being torn apart. At the other end merely updating informed consent laws to tell women about to go through a chemical abortion that should they change their mind and not take the second drug, their unborn baby has a more than decent chance of surviving.

But in today’s last post I would like to briefly address a measure that goes under a number of different descriptions, including unborn victims of violence and fetal homicide. The premise is simple.

If in committing a crime a perpetrator murders a woman and her unborn child is killed as well, the man ought to be charged with a separate, additional charge for the loss of that baby’s life.

You can write language into the law specifically saying this that this is not about abortion, will have no impact on abortion–language that is impossible to misunderstood–and pro-abortionists will insist it is about abortion.

For example in Indiana, state Sen. Aaron Freeman sponsored SB 203. As we posted elsewhere today,

SEA 203 permits charges of murder, manslaughter, and feticide against any person killing an unborn child, at any stage of development, during the commission of a felony.

SEA 203 passed the Indiana House on Feb. 27 by a vote of 96-3. It passed the Indiana Senate on Feb. 1 by a vote of 42-6.

Sen. Aaron Freeman authored the bill after hearing from a woman in his district whose pregnant daughter and grandchild were killed in a homicide. Freeman said, “If someone kills a pregnant woman, they should not only be tried for her death, but also the death of the fetus.”

Even the pro-abortion site Rewire News’ Teddy Wilson acknowledged

Freeman told Indiana Public Radio that the bill is not intended to restrict access to abortion care or target pregnant people who self-induce an abortion. “This bill has nothing to do with two things. One is a woman’s legal right to an abortion,” Freeman said. “And two, it does not have anything to do with a woman who would terminate her own pregnancy.”

Those assurances, of course, did nothing to stem the hysterical over-reaction of the pro-abortion movement’s in-house think tank:

Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, told Rewire.News that fetal homicide laws are intentionally drafted to curtail reproductive rights. “They are attempting to create a legal framework that could be used to support a rollback of abortion rights—by essentially giving a fetus legal standing,” Nash said. “That is incredibly important if you’re trying to protect abortion rights.”

Just to be clear, pro-abortionists are so maniacal about “protecting choice.”

Canada’s pro-life organization Weneedalaw has worked (unsuccessfully thus far) with members of their Parliament to pass Bill C-225 (Cassie and Molly’s Law), a law that would have allowed additional charges to be laid against a killer if a pregnant woman’s unborn baby was killed as well. Read this and see what “choice” pro-abortionist care not a twit about:

Bill C-225 was introduced largely because Molly, a pre-born baby who died when her mother was murdered, had a father left behind who cared deeply. Her father, Jeff Durham, wanted Molly recognized as a victim along with her mother because that recognition would be a validation of the choice Cassandra Kaake made to be a mother.

In the case of Ms. Goberdhan [another pregnant woman who was murdered and whose unborn baby died], who will fight for her baby? Who will miss that awaited child silently, knowing justice can never be fully served

To the anti-life mind, there can only be one “choice”—to kill. Any other—such as honoring a woman’s choice to carry her baby to term—must be opposed at all costs.

Editor’s note. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to