September 1, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

May 31, 2012


Killing Baby Girls No Problem for Pro-Abortion Extremists

Having an abortion because your unborn child is the wrong gender (virtually always a girl) is almost universally condemned. Even Planned Parenthood says that it is against such abortions (even though it makes no effort to stop them, naturally). An overwhelming majority (86%) of Americans, including a significant portion of those who call themselves pro-choice, think sex selection abortion should be illegal. I think it’s fair to say that supporting the right of women to kill their girl babies because they are girls is a position that is on the fringe of American political life.

With that in mind, I give you the House Democrats and their pro-abort allies:

Democrats in Congress peddled a curious reason for opposing a ban on sex-selection abortions that target girl babies with abortion because they are not boy parents may prefer. They said the ban was anti-woman and part of the so-called “War on Women” Republicans are allegedly waging.

During today’s debate on the Congressional bill to ban sex-selection abortions, Michigan Democrat John Conyers said the ban on sex-selection abortions “tramples the rights of women.”

“It limits a woman’s right to choose and jeopardizes her access to safe, legal medical care,” he claimed.

Jarrold Nadler, of New York, said the ban on sex-selection abortions is the “latest tactic in the War on Women.” Rep. Hank Johnson said the bill was part of the “Republican War on Women.” And Barbara Lee of California went as far as claiming that women would reset to back alley abortions if they couldn’t obtain a sex-selection abortion like the ones the bill would ban.

Meanwhile, NARAL Pro-Choice America weighed in with…look, a squirrel:

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan said that while her group has long opposed “reproductive coercion,” “the Franks bill exploits the very real problem of sex discrimination and gender inequity while failing to offer any genuine solutions that would eliminate disparities in health care access and information.”

“Nancy Keenan” is clearly an anagram for “non sequitur”.

And how could we have a discussion of any political issue without the race card being played:

Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, said the bill fosters discrimination by “subjecting women from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds to additional scrutiny about their decision to terminate a pregnancy.”

Right. It’s racist to want to see more African-American or Hispanic children born.

It turns out that those who oppose prevention of sex selection abortions have an ally in the White House:

White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith told [ABC’s Jake Tapper] in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision. The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

Got it: the same people who nationalized one-sixth of the American economy, and gave the federal government the authority to regulate every aspect of health care in America, believe that “the government should not intrude in medical decisions.” Color me skeptical.

There may be a case to be made that such a ban would be unenforceable. But that’s not the case most opponents made. The spoke instead of a burden being placed on doctors, or about “reproductive health,” or about the “war on women” (!), or about utter nonsense (would someone really resort to a “back-alley abortion” because they were having a girl rather than a boy?). But what it all comes down to is this: these are people who think that abortion is the one thing in all of human existence that no one has any right to restrict in any way, for any reason, at any time or place—not for the protection of the mother, not for the protection of the baby, not to protect females or the disabled. And the moral convictions of Americans be damned.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

13 comments

Ugh.

[1] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 5-31-2012 at 05:52 PM · [top]

According to the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, outlawing sex-selection abortions is racist or something.

[2] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 5-31-2012 at 06:53 PM · [top]

You know how the Episcopal Public Policy Network helps you send pre-drafted letters of various issues to your government representatives?  Is there something like that for Anglicans?  It would be nice when I see stuff like this to sign a petition or send a form letter to my Congressman.  The Americans United for Life email list is good, but it seems sadly that the best way to help is to send them cash.

I wrote my bishop last week that I had and continue to withhold donations to the TEC until it withdraws from the religious coalition for reproductive choice (and quits suing departing parishes).  It’s not much, but it’s all I can think to do.

[3] Posted by The Plantagenets on 5-31-2012 at 07:05 PM · [top]

Without in any way suggesting that the RCRC is anything less than utterly odious, I find it amazing that this subject is apparently so toxic that even they won’t touch it. There’s been nothing on either their main site or their blog about it. Normally they would be rallying the troops and going all indignant.

[4] Posted by David Fischler on 5-31-2012 at 07:39 PM · [top]

Face it Johnson - just being conservative is racist.

[5] Posted by Nikolaus on 5-31-2012 at 07:57 PM · [top]

Not exactly politically correct, either!

[6] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 5-31-2012 at 08:09 PM · [top]

David thank you for publicising this. 

I am continually amazed by how far some extremists get in politics, simply because nobody seems to notice their extremist views for a long time.

I think that even many who support abortion on demand would be repulsed by this. Please continue to bring it to our attention.

[7] Posted by MichaelA on 5-31-2012 at 09:28 PM · [top]

Killing your own kind is misogynistic!

[8] Posted by Carpe DCN on 5-31-2012 at 09:43 PM · [top]

I am continually amazed by how far some extremists get in politics

Why not?  Our Commander in Chief, as an Illinois senator voted FOR infanticide: the killing of a live-born baby which was the survivor of a botched late-term abortion because the orginal intent of the mother had been to have the fetus killed.

Why should it matter where the living fetus came from?  It was alive, it was a person, and to kill it would be…..............murder.

And here the advocate of that position is now President! 

As others have pointed out; just wait until there is a pre-natal test for homosexuality tendencies and we have abortions taking place for those fetuses which test positive.

[9] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 6-1-2012 at 07:25 AM · [top]

Good point, Capt. Father Warren! I’ll bet there’d be a different take on aborting babies based on that Homosexual tendencies test!

The argument that banning abortion based gender because it’s “anti-women” is utterly ridiculous! It’s not anti-women to kill babies because they’re female?

[10] Posted by Nellie on 6-1-2012 at 08:11 AM · [top]

This confirms what I began to expect when no one on the Left batted an eye over the horribly racist and misogynistic things said about Herman Cain and Sarah Palin. Liberals really do no care about women and minorities, only women and minorities who can vote for them.

[11] Posted by Ecclesiastes 1:18 on 6-1-2012 at 08:21 AM · [top]

Oh, c’mon, David, it’s just a little ol’ medical procedure to advance women’s health.  It’s not like these gals are out buying Big Gulps of Mt. Dew or something heinous and reprehensible like that, things that government needs to put an end to.

[12] Posted by Jeffersonian on 6-1-2012 at 08:22 PM · [top]

This is what a political ideology looks like when it has lunged to the end of its chain, slipped its collar, and is running completely amok, loosed from any connection to logic or rationality.  God help them.  And us.

[13] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 6-1-2012 at 08:22 PM · [top]

What we are witnessing are many liberals being comfortable enough to be honest about issues vs. pretending to be conservatives so they can get re-elected.

It’s frankly an ugly and amazing sight, with no rhyme or reason to their opinions.

PAY ATTENTION - if folks has simply reviewed Obama’s incredibly radical record on abortion there isn’t any way he gets elected.  I wouldn’t trust someone with his views to buy a stick of gum at the store, much less be POTUS.

[14] Posted by B. Hunter on 6-13-2012 at 02:36 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.