By Dave Andrusko
Prior to this morning, I had not seen “Texas’ heartbeat law has been durable and effective,” a column written by Cynthia M. Allen, an opinion writer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
It was a good analysis of Texas’ Heartbeat Law, S.J. 8 and favorably disposed to its intent and its results. The concluding sentence reads “It’s been durable, effective and is inspiring other state legislatures to follow its lead.”
Yesterday the Houston Chronicle ran a rebuttal as a letter-to-the editor. At first I thought it was a spoof and then I realized the writer was serious. The key sentences read
In her column she mistakenly uses the term “pre-born children.” Of course, there is no such thing. Children are either born or not born. It is disheartening that she seems to not understand the difference between a fetus and a newborn child.
Ok. The abortion lobby, of course, can’t see the difference. This is why, increasing, they make no bones about wanting abortion up until birth and resist giving the abortion survivor the same level of care that any other preemie receives.
It would be interesting to know what the letter writer’s position is on babies who survive abortion. Is he or she merely a “fetus-ex utero”? Would neglecting him or her be a “fourth trimester”?
This is insanity.