Pro-abortionists pretend not to be able to fathom why pro-lifers would vigorously oppose their radical agenda

By Dave Andrusko

Let’s agree that if you accept the premises, this makes a kind of demented sense.

If you really believe that unlimited abortion through all 40 weeks is the minimum you should demand, and that treating abortion survivors as you would any other baby of the same age is an “infringement” on the “right” to abandon that baby, then I suppose you can talk yourself into most anything.

And that would including persuading yourself that only a coordinated offensive could explain why pro-lifers in a number of states would show up en masse to try to stop the insanity.

Which is what Auditi Guha told us yesterday: “‘A Coordinated Backlash’: Anti-Choice Protests Explode as State Lawmakers Protect Abortion Rights.”

(The “coordinated backlash” idiom comes from Robin Chappelle Golston, president and CEO at Planned Parenthood Empire State. See below.)

Snowflakes that they are, pro-abortionists, such as abortion escort Jamie Hagen, whined to Guha of Rewire.News that testifying on behalf of radical pro-life measures in Rhode Island was “unnerving and unsettling.”

In other words, because pro-lifers didn’t roll over, didn’t allow themselves to be steamrolled, it felt to Hagan “a little bit like a grilling and like I was going out there on a limb to say something as basic as abortion should be protected.”

And then, to see “’cheers erupting for people speaking against abortion rights’ in the chamber was a shock for Hagen,” Guha writes.

Get it? Even to cheer is “unnerving and unsettling.”

Here’s how Rhode Island Right to Life described the bill in their state. It is

an extreme abortion bill, like its counterparts in New York and Virginia. It is a sweeping expansion of the abortion license in Rhode Island, which will prevent meaningful state regulation of the abortion industry, protect 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion methods such as partial- birth abortions, dismemberment abortions, and abortions performed on pain-capable unborn children, and eliminate meaningful restriction and limitation of post-viability abortions.

[BTW, the “pushback” somehow includes crisis pregnancy centers, which, of course, have been around for decades. They are nonpolitical in every sense.]

What really annoys pro-abortionists is they want the right to discriminate in making medical decisions for babies who survive abortion but not to be rightly accused of infanticide. And on top of that, having passed the “Reproductive Health Act” in New York, pro-abortionists are apoplectic that legislating abortion on demand and no treatment for abortion survivors has energized pro-lifers to fight against similar legislation elsewhere.

“I think they [whoever “they” is] were really able to prepare for this in a way to really shame New York state and to try to influence other states from passing protective laws for abortion rights,” Robin Chappelle Golston said. “They were using us obviously as a national example of the wrath that you would face if you tried to protect a women’s right to choose.”

Which doesn’t prevent them from proposing radically pro-abortion measures in places such as Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, and Vermont, according to Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion movement’s think tank. They’re busy “considering and moving legislation to protect abortion rights.”

Golston added.,“They have been going so far out in talking about this bill in really disingenuous ways, like abortions after birth, and playing into the fake news rhetoric in a way that’s really damaging and dangerous, pushing to the extreme, when we really codified the Roe v. Wade protections we had nationally.”

What to say in conclusion to such bald-faced dishonesty?

*“Codifying Roe v. Wade” was the cover story for New York’s Reproductive Health Act for years and years. It is the idiom of choice for the Abortion Lobby to mask how genuinely radically anti-life their proposals actually are.

*It is the abortion lobby that likes to talk about “abortion after birth” or “after-birth abortion” in order to ignore that the baby is now outside the mother’s womb and what they are doing—or not doing—is action taken against an undeniable member of the human family.

*Let’s hope abortion escort Hagen is right when she told Guha, “Even though I knew there was a strong contingency against (abortion rights), it wasn’t until I was standing at the state house and literally feeling my body shaking from all the speakers, the protesters, that I realized what an uphill battle it really is in Providence.”