By Dave Andrusko
In the Internet age, I think we all know how easy it is to dash something off, take a quick look (maybe even two), and push “send.” I try my darndest not to fall into that trap, and no doubt you do as well.
Having said that, many I time I honestly ask myself, do pro-abortionists actually listen to what they say or read what they write?
Here’s one of a gazillion examples. Jessica Glenza writes for the London-based pro-abortion Guardian newspaper and composed a post under the curious title, “How anti-abortion activists use cutting edge science to justify ever stricter laws.”
I know nothing about Dr. Edward Bell, a neonatologist who “treats the tiniest babies at University of Iowa,” children’s hospital other than what Glenza quotes him as saying. If we accept her characterization, Dr. Bell is not happy that pro-lifers want to know about younger and younger preemies who’ve survived.
While the doctor said he considers attention from anti-abortion campaigners a distraction from his work with premature children, he also acknowledged viability is “a moving target.”
In explaining how medical advances and limitations on abortions converge, Bell said, “It’s gotten to the point where in many places you can have a legal abortion in one part of the hospital of a baby who can be a patient in the neonatal unit in another part of the hospital, and have a good chance of survival. And that’s unacceptable to some people.”
Read Dr. Bell’s amazing conclusion once again. It’s “unacceptable to some people” that in one wing of a hospital, doctors and nurses are doing everything humanly possible to save a baby while in another wing of the same hospital an abortionist is about to kill a baby of the exact same age.
That ought to be “unacceptable” not to “some people” but to every morally sentient human being.
To return to the not-so-subtle thesis of Glenza’s post. Cutting edge science is upsetting the pro-abortion apple cart and she (and the Planned Parenthood types she quotes) aren’t happy.
Beyond this leading to an ever-earlier point of viability, they’re not happy with ultrasound, which gives an abortion-minded woman or girl a chance to see the one whose existence they are bent on ending. We understand why.
“It’s just, every time there is some kind of development or advancement or discovery, it just reinforces our position,” Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, told Glenza. “There’s new information we will certainly use and try to educate the public.”
They are especially not happy about the science that demonstrates the unborn child can experience pain by the 20th week, if not earlier. It’s so threatening to the abortion-throughout-all-40-weeks-of-pregnancy crowd that Glenza spends her time talking not about how ghastly it is that we would accept dismembering babies who would suffer horribly but how costly it is to save very premature babies!
While Glenza takes especially aim at pro-life Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Glenza only briefly alludes to “Micah,” who the Senator has often talked about. Sen. Ernst said in 2017, in defending the proposals Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Ac
“At five month gestational age, babies have 10 fingers and 10 toes, they can yawn, stretch, make faces – and they can feel pain. It’s unconscionable that the United States is currently one of only 7 countries in the world that allows abortions after five months; we are currently in the same company of China and North Korea. I’m fighting for this legislation in honor of my friend and fellow Iowan, Micah Pickering, an incredible 5 year old who was born prematurely, at five months gestation. This legislation could protect up to 10,000 lives like Micah’s every year by preventing abortions after about 5 months of development, and it is absolutely critical that the Senate take up this legislation to protect our most vulnerable.”
Darn that “cutting edge science.” It is undercutting one pro-abortion delusion after another.