By Dave Andrusko
Last week we reposted a legislative alert from Rhode Island Right to Life. It combined gratitude (the Senate Judiciary Committee had just defeated the Senate version of the radical abortion-expansion bill by 5-4 “while holding the House version of the bill for further study”) with caution —a call for pro-lifers “to remain vigilant until we can clarify the situation. Stay tuned…”
So I read an editorial that ran Saturday in the virulently pro-abortion Providence Journal with great interest.
The editorial was so devious (and lacking in candor), it bordered on the unintentionally hilarious but more importantly revealing. Just three quick points.
First, “Advocates are hoping to find some other parliamentary means to get the issue before the full chamber, which might be more receptive to an abortion-rights bill than the committee.” This is only one reason (I’m sure) of many that Rhode Island Right to Life reminded its members to keep sharp. The session is not over and pro-abortionists are nothing if not determined.
The House did a good job in March debating this contentious matter peacefully and, for the most part, respectfully. The bill it produced by a 44-to-30 margin seemed to reflect the general attitude of most Rhode Islanders toward abortion.
Most want it to be legal early in a pregnancy. They have much greater concern about the abortion of an unborn child after it might be viable outside the womb.
And what does that have to do with the latest bill in Rhode Island? Does it reflect those dual concerns (as the editorial page frames them)? Of course not. Rhode Island Right to Life was not exaggerating in the least when it described the bill as “New York and Virginia style abortion extremism.” For example, the bill
- Enables late-term, post-viability abortions due to inadequate definitions of “viability / health / necessary;”
- Creates a broad “non-interference” statutory framework that would prevent meaningful state regulation of abortionists, and which…
- Protects 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion methods such as partial birth abortions and dismemberment abortions of pain-capable unborn babies;
- Endangers young girls by eroding parental consent laws, allowing consent by a grandparent or sibling;
- Removes the penalty for experimentation on human fetuses.
Beyond these and other serious, particular problems, there is the startling reality that — for the first time in history — Rhode Island law would create and recognize a “right” to take the life of an innocent human being through abortion even though our state Constitution explicitly disavows such a “right.”
Third, “Fortunately, whatever happens to the legislation in this session, it would not change much in Rhode Island for the foreseeable future. There is no need to panic yet. That is because abortion remains legal nationwide under the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.”
Wait a minute!!!!!!!! Weren’t the citizens of Rhode Island lectured incessantly that Roe had one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel? True, but that was so….yesterday.
To be clear, pro-lifers are not out of the wood in Rhode Island. The Providence Journal wants this radical abortion bill passed even as it pretend it’s right in line with public opinion (a gross distortion). But even if it doesn’t get passed, not to worry. Roe isn’t going anywhere soon.
It’s enough to give cynicism a bad name.