Pro-abortion militants and the abortion divide

By Dave Andrusko

We’ve discussed pro-abortion Prof. Mary Ziegler’s musings before, most recently an op-ed for the New York Times. It was a perfect mish-mash under the misleading headline, “The Abortion Wars Have Become a Fight Over Science.”

She was talking about fetal pain and the eminently defensible conclusion that abortion can cause “severe emotional disturbances” in some post-abortion women or increase the chances of “prematurity in subsequent pregnancies.”

Among the many critiques I offered was that Ziegler wrote as if we know nothing more today about the capability of the unborn child to experience pain than we did in 2005. Time—in this case, science—stands still. It’s simply not true.

Now she returns to offer still another bizarre explanation of why “The two sides are growing further apart on abortion.” Answer? According to her op-ed in the Washington Post, “We can thank Donald Trump.”

Before we get to (for lack of a better word) the substance of her argument, consider the context. In states where Democrats rule, they want abortion legalized through all 40 weeks of pregnancy; the “right” to abortion written into the state constitution; and an agreement that we should neglect abortion survivors beyond (possibly) making the baby ”comfortable.”

Donald Trump is responsible for that?

Actually, we don’t know if Ziegler believes that or not, at least not until the end. Why? For the reason that the only laws that are driving us “further apart on abortion,” according to Ziegler, are pro-life laws. There is only one reference (without specifics) that allude to pro-abortion activism, and that, of course, is only a defensive response.

So just so we understand. No matter how far out to sea pro-abortion proposals may be, it is only—can only—be pro-life laws (inspired by President Trump) that drive us further part.

In fact, in a fit of historical revisionism extreme even by the standards of abortion apologists such as Ziegler, we are told that when Bill Clinton became president, all the abortion lobby wanted was “to avoid appearing extreme.” Ziegler writes,

Organizations such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood invested in the Freedom of Choice Act, pitching it as a way to shore up the protections women already had. NRLC responded not by deriding existing rights but by accusing its opponents of covertly seeking something more radical.

Actually, if you looked at FOCA for even a moment, you would see there was nothing “covert” about FOCA. They intended to use the law to obliterate virtually all protective legislation. It would have gone far beyond Roe, which Ziegler rhetorically hides in the idiom that FOCA would merely “shore up the protection women already had.”

Near the end, Ziegler does throw in a reference to New York’s Reproductive Health Act (which she manages not to say legalized abortion up until birth) and Virginia’s Repeal Act, the significance of which she completely misses.

The author, Del. Tran, explicitly said her bill would legalize abortion through all 40 weeks. Awful as that was, the governor subsequently took her logic one step further to okay non-treatment of abortion survivors. That’s infanticide.

But not to Ziegler. For her, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) is all politics. It “may have addressed a virtually nonexistent problem — the killing of children born alive during an abortion — but it allowed Republicans to paint Democrats as extremists.”

There is no “may” about it. And the question is may you neglect an abortion survivor—treat her differently than you would a baby of similar gestational age born under normal conditions. To most people, as polls have clearly revealed, that discrimination is wrong.

Asked the following

Congress is considering legislation that would ensure that a baby who survives a failed abortion would be given the same medical treatment as any other baby born prematurely at the same age. Do you support or oppose this legislation?

A whopping 77% supported the legislation. But nothing in Ziegler’s op-ed about that, anymore than there is about the overwhelming opposition to late-term abortions.

Trump rightly deserves credit for energizing the Movement. His remarks in his State of the Union address about the need to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act were music to our ears.

Last week in Michigan, Joyce Frieden of MedPage tells us

He also criticized Democrats for “aggressively pushing extreme late-term abortion, allowing children to be ripped from their mother’s womb right up until the moment of birth.” Trump said that Virginia governor Ralph Northam, MD (D), “stated that he would even allow a newborn baby, wrap the baby up, make the baby comfortable, to be executed after birth. And that is why, in my State of the Union address, I called on Congress to immediately pass legislation prohibiting the extreme late term abortion of babies.”

The President is promoting legislation supported by a solid-to-vast majority of Americans. Contrary to Ziegler, it is pro-abortion Democrats, not pro-life President Trump, who is driving us “further apart on abortion.”