By Dave Andrusko
If we know anything that is more sure than the sun rising in the East it’s that anything that treats the unborn with a shred of decency will be denounced by the Abortion Lobby as “an attack on abortion, nothing else.”
This absurd comment came from pro-abortion Tennessee state Rep. Rep. Gloria Johnson (D-Knoxville), speaking about a bill that would do nothing more than require abortion facilities to bury or cremate the remains of babies who’d lost their lives to abortion. And hospitals are exempt.
But none of that placated the usual suspects. “All I’m going to say is this is one of the most offensive pieces of legislation I’ve heard this year,” said fellow Democrat state Rep. London Lamar, D-Memphis.
State Rep. Robin Smith, R-Hixson, says she came across fetal remains in the morgue while working as a hospital nurse.
“It’s not fetal tissue,” she said. “It’s dismembered children. … We’re going to treat them as they are — the created human that is pre-born.”
Sisk noted, “The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld such requirements, saying they do not infringe on the right to an abortion.” He was referring to the May 28, 2019, Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky decision.
“The Supreme Court gave the pro-life movement a major victory by upholding Indiana’s fetal remains law,” Mike Fichter, President and CEO of Indiana Right to Life said at the time. “The court sided with Indiana that unborn human remains must receive dignified disposal. Humane disposal takes us one step closer to recognizing the dignity of unborn children. Aborted children may no longer be treated as medical waste or garbage. Instead, these precious lives will be required by law to receive a burial or cremation.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had found the Indiana law invalid. But in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, the justices noted
This Court has already acknowledged that a State has a “legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.” [The 1983 Akron case.] The Seventh Circuit clearly erred in failing to recognize that interest as a permissible basis for Indiana’s disposition law.”