By Dave Andrusko
Yesterday we reposted the Action Alert from Rhode Island Right to Life about abortion bills which were aptly described as a “EXTREME New York style abortion expansion bills,” Bills like New York’s already enacted “Reproductive Health Act” resemble nothing so much as a crazed feeding frenzy.
There are throwaway lines about how [fill in the blank] is merely “codifying Roe,” but proponents of these bills, like Rhode Island’s, have gone off the deep end. The excuse for abortion on demand is two-fold.
First, the Roe v. Wade could be overturned, a delightful prospective, but not immediately on the horizon. The Supreme Court is (ordinarily) cautious by nature. Second, proponents are alarmed by the prospect that a woman might not be able to abort without limitation until the moment of delivery and frightened (angered?) by the chance that a poor baby who somehow survives a late abortion might have to be treated as you would any other baby prematurely delivered.
Consider the following over-the-top (even by pro-abortion standards) from a state Representative who represents the Providence, Rhode Island area, as quoted by ABC 10 News Woman creates ‘Me, still me’ movement as RI lawmakers mull abortion bills:
“Rhode Islanders overwhelmingly support the reproductive rights that are currently the law of the land. But our state law books include multiple, in some cases, very intentional contradictions to the rights articulated by Roe v. Wade,” [Edith] Ajello, a Democrat who represents District 1, noted in a press release. “Unfortunately, with the individuals in power in Washington right now, there is a very real chance that Roe v. Wade could be overturned at some point in the near future, leaving Rhode Island women subject to these insidiously restrictive, harmful and patriarchal reproductive laws. Half a century of progress would be wiped away, and we would return to the days when women were forced to put their lives at risk in making personal reproductive health decisions.”
“[I]nsidiously restrictive, harmful and patriarchal reproductive laws”? (Does this woman have anger issues, or what?) What are some of these “patriarchal reproductive laws” that would be gutted by H5125 and H 5127? According to legal experts consulted by Rhode Island Right to Life…
“Both H 5127 and H 5125 would:
- Eliminate any constitutional restrictions on late-term abortions
- Eliminate any constitutional restrictions on methods of abortion
- Undermine the authority of the State and the Department of Health from enacting and adopting constitutional restrictions on the performance of abortions at facilities where abortions are performed
- Require the State to pay for all abortions sought by Medicaid-eligible pregnant women and women covered by the “payer of last Resort” program
“In addition, H 5127 would:
- Repeal existing constitutional protection for a viable unborn child from criminal assaults on the child’s mother
“and H 5125 would
- Substantially “water down” the State’s parental consent statute by allowing consent to be obtained from persons who have no constitutional right to give consent (grandparents and adult siblings).
Consider what these “insidiously restrictive, harmful and patriarchal reproductive laws” are intended to accomplish. Keep a watchful eye on abortion clinics; prevent tax dollars from paying for abortions; offer protections to a viable child whose mom is criminally assaulted; ban some particularly hideous abortion technique; and make sure a minor girl has her parent[s] consent to abort (there is always the judicial bypass, by the way).
Only in the minds of the likes of State Rep. Ajello and Gov. Gina Raimondo are these repressive. They are bare-minimums.
But in the heat of the moment, the Abortion Lobby and the politicians it supports are trying to ram through changes that the public—including the people of Rhode Island—do not support. They believe that enough super-heated rhetoric will grease the skids of passage.
It worked in New York. We pray it fails in Rhode Island and the other hothouses of pro-abortion madness.