Abortion


The state of California, in its infinite wisdom, has become the latest secular jurisdiction to decide the First Amendment doesn’t apply within its bounds. This time, the issue is abortion, and the churches of that state have found out that while they don’t have to provide insurance coverage for contraception, they do have to provide it for surgical abortion. The Federalist unveils the insanity:

For the past four years, the Obama administration and its friends on the Left were careful to claim that they still strongly support religious liberty while arguing that Hobby Lobby’s Green family, Conestoga Wood Specialties’ Hahn family, and others like them must lose. Principally, they contended, religious liberty protections could not be applied to Hobby Lobby because (1) It is a for-profit corporation, (2) It isn’t a church (and thus not a true “religious employer,” and (3) It is wrong on the science—Plan B, a copper intrauterine device, et cetera, they claimed, do not cause abortions. They implied, if not claimed outright, that they would surely support religious freedom in another case, but Hobby Lobby was unworthy to claim its protections.

The State of California is now calling their bluff. California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.

At the insistence of the American Civil Liberties Union, the DMHC concluded that a 40-year-old state law requiring health plans to cover “basic health services” had been misinterpreted all these decades. Every plan in the state was immediately ordered, effective August 22, to cover elective abortion. California had not even applied this test to its own state employee health plans (which covered only “medically necessary” abortions). But this novel reading was nevertheless quietly imposed on every plan in the state by fiat.

Several other California churches have received similar notices from their insurers, and others will follow. While California (like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS) exempts churches from its contraceptive mandate, there is no exception to this bureaucratic abortion mandate. This leaves California churches in the illogical and impossible position of being free to exclude contraceptives from their health plan for reasons of religious conscience but required to provide their employees with abortion coverage.

This California mandate is in blatant violation of federal law that specifically prohibits California from discriminating against health care plans on the basis that they do not cover abortion. Alliance Defending Freedom and Life Legal Defense Foundation have filed administrative complaints with the HHS Office of Civil Rights (which oversees this federal law) on behalf of individual employees and seven California churches forced into abortion coverage in violation of their conscience.

Kaiser Permanente is among the insurers who have contacted churches about this bureaucratic nightmare. Here’s the Catch-22 part: if churches refuse to accept this, the result will not be jack-booted thugs banging on the door at midnight. It will simply be that insurance companies will cancel their health insurance, thus leaving tens of thousands of people either at risk for financial ruin, or forced on the federal exchange, where they will also be required to help subsidize other people’s abortions.

I can’t imagine what form of civil disobedience would be effective against this kind of evil, so I hope the courts have not completely lost their minds and will protect California churches from the Molech worship in which the state wishes to enlist them.

Advertisements

Every time I think the Molech cult has reached a new low, they find even greater depths of evil and idiocy to plumb. The latest instance is a Scottish “poet” named Leyla Josephine, whose self-justifying video is being promoted by the Huffington Post. LifeSiteNews has more:

In the video Josephine, decked out in military camouflage, justifies herself in part by saying that she would have been willing to serve as a sacrifice to abortion just as she offered her daughter to the idol of “choice.”

“I would’ve supported her right to choose – to choose a life for herself, a path for herself. I would’ve died for that right like she died for mine,” she said.

Well, she would’ve supported her right to choose, but unfortunately the little tyke had the temerity to be conceived at the wrong time. So no “right to choose” for her. As for Josephine’s declaration that she “would’ve died for that right,” that’s clearly a lie, since she wouldn’t even suffer the inconvenience of an untimely birth in order to insure that her kid had the right to choose….anything.

In the next rhyming line, she addresses her unborn daughter: “I’m sorry, but you came at the wrong time.”

And since you “came at the wrong time,” Josephine has every right to take away, not only your “right to choose,” but your right to make any and every decision you ever would have made–the choice of who to love, who to serve, what to believe, what kind of work to do, what kind of education to get, where to live, who to bless, whether to have children. Your timing was bad, Baby Josephine, so you had to die. But hey! If your timing had been better, your mother would have defended to the death your right to do to your child what she did to hers.

“I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed,” she continues – a phrase she repeats a total of six times. She repeats the phrase “This is my body” three times.

In other words, she’s horrendously ashamed, and knows she has killed another human being. Modern technology being what it is, she refuses to do the decent thing and grieve privately. Instead, she wants to tell the whole world what an self-centered, self-absorbed, nitwit she is, so her heinous sin can then be celebrated by one of the most read Web sites on the planet.

In the early part of the video, she describes her belief that her child was a girl and imagines a life where she had given birth to her daughter.

“I know she was a she,” she says. “I would have made sure that there was space on the walls to measure her height,” she adds. “I would have made sure I was a good mother.”

If the video is any indication, she’d have been a horrible mother–incapable of putting her child first, consistently subordinated the child’s best interests to her selfish desires, and demanding that her child bow down to her obscene god. But that’s just my guess.

LSN writer Ben Jonson hits just the right note when he says:

That intimation that her daughter died for “choice” – that she offered her baby as a living sacrifice on the altar of abortion – confirms the darkest rhetoric of the pro-life movement: That for some in the movement, abortion is sometimes regarded as an idol.

Rarely has the cult-like nature of the abortion movement been better illustrated.

(Embedding has been disabled. If you really want to see this, you can go here. Via Hot Air.)

Here’s the headline from the Daily Beast:

A Christian Case for Abortion Rights?

Wendy Davis’ abortion revelations raise the question: Can abortion be the most compassionate choice? Some religious leaders say yes.

Wendy Davis is the Democratic candidate for Governor of Texas. She has just published a memoir, less than two months before the election, with the transparent purpose of trying to play on voters’ sympathies. In it, she claims to have had two abortions, one because of an ectopic pregnancy, one because of fatal birth defects to the baby. The odds of both of these highly unusual circumstances happening to the same women are very high, and Davis has a history of fudging her biography. None of it matters electorally, because she has as much chance of winning as I do of being the next Super Bowl MVP. Nonetheless, her “confession” has occasioned some supposedly deep thinking, Keli Goff’s column in the Daily Beast included.

She begins:

When news broke that Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis had previously terminated two pregnancies for medical reasons, she received words of compassion from a surprising source. A spokesperson for Texas Right to Life called “the value of life precious” but nevertheless also stated, “Our heart goes out for the decision she had to make.” Part of what has struck a chord about Davis’ story is that it serves as a potent reminder that the factors that go into the decision of whether to have an abortion are rarely as black and white as public political debates pretend they are.

If Goff knew any real, live right-to-life people, she would know that there is nothing surprising about her source. Right-to-lifers by and large are people who understand sin and redemption, understand the need to treat sinners with kindness though not approval of their actions, and who have done more to help post-abortion women than NARAL or NOW would dare (since admitting that abortion is typically not a rainbows-and-unicorns experience undermines The Narrative). As for Davis’ abortions demonstrating that things “are rarely as black and white as public political debates pretend they are,” the fact that she claims to have had abortions under two very rare circumstances actually does nothing to change the fact that in 97% of abortions, it is black and white. Abortion is wrong. Period.

Davis makes it clear this was a pregnancy that was greeted with joy, and that the aftermath caused great sorrow. But she expressed no regrets mainly because of her concerns about how much her fetus suffered before termination. Her candid confession gets at the heart of the debate for many over the issue of abortion, particularly people of faith: Can abortion sometimes be the most compassionate choice? More pointedly, can supporting abortion rights be compatible with Christianity?

No. Next question.

Leave aside the claims that Davis makes about the condition of the deformed baby. Here’s the reason why Goff’s question gets such a curt answer: while relieving suffering is a Christian virtue, it is not the highest virtue. The fact that a person is suffering or may suffer in the future is never a reason to kill that person. For one thing, Christianity contends that suffering may have a redemptive purpose that cannot be dismissed given that the redemptive suffering of Christ is at the heart of our faith. Countless Christians through the centuries have counted it an honor to suffer as our Lord suffered, and in the process seen their own life or that of people around them transformed. For another, claiming that killing is a proper response to suffering makes the mistake of allowing suffering to define the entirety of life, which is the first step down the road of claiming that there is life that is unworthy of living. For a third, this is a classic “ends justify the means” argument–ending suffering is a noble end, so it makes righteous the use of killing to end it. Christianity unequivocally rejects such an perversion of moral reasoning, no matter how pervasive it is in American culture.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion nationally, efforts to criminalize it have been led in large part by high-profile religious leaders, religious groups, and activists whose politics are defined in large part by their religious identity. In the 41 years since Roe, the Religious Right, (sometimes called the Christian Right), has become a major force in national politics, with each Republican president since Ronald Reagan owing his election to its key players, among them Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, and others. Their influence in politics and ubiquity in the media created the impression that being religious, particularly identifying as a Christian, means opposing abortion.

But interviews with various clergy members and religious scholars indicate that there is far from a consensus that “Christian” = “opposed to abortion.”

You can imagine where this goes from here. Goff offers the opinions of a variety of liberal Christians, none of whom bother to make a theological or ethical argument for supporting abortion rights. For example:

Rev. Jacqui Lewis, who holds a PhD in psychology and religion, wrote in an email, “I am a practicing Christian and I am pro-choice. Those are compatible.” She elaborated, “I am a Christian, a pastor, a counselor and I know from counseling that when women make this decision, it is a painful one, often a heart breaking one. But personally, I believe it is their right to decide, in conversation with their partner or spouse, their family, their spiritual leader and their God.”

All that demonstrates is that there are Christians who support abortion rights. No news there. As to why they do, that’s a mystery. Tom Davis, a former chaplain and associate professor of religion at Skidmore College, takes a crack at it:

In a phone interview Davis said there are texts for some religions that address abortion specifically, such as in ancient Babylonia, but this is not the case in Christianity: “There is no law against abortion in the Bible. There is no law about birth control in the Bible. So when you don’t have a specific guidance on something, you look at what is the most human thing to do in a situation, what is most helpful and sometimes abortion is indicated.”

Ignore the line about birth control, which is pure red herring. It is debatable whether the Bible does or does not specifically condemn abortion. What is indisputable is that the Christian Church, from its earliest days, condemned abortion (widely practiced in the Roman Empire at the time) in the strongest terms. (The author of the Didache writes, “You shall not murder…you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide” [2.2], while the author of the Epistle of Barnabaswrites, “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide” [19.5]. Both are from the early second century.) Claiming that there is any ambiguity about historic Christian teaching because the New Testament doesn’t mention it is like claiming that Jesus was OK with homosexual behavior because He isn’t recorded as condemning it. As for Davis basing his ethical decisions on “what is the most human thing to do in a situation,” I suppose it is possible to conceive of a flabbier excuse for ethical thinking, but I can’t come up with anything just at the moment.

Not having an argument, Davis tries an example:

Asked for an example of abortion being a more humane choice he recalled a situation from his days as a counselor when a woman came to him crushed because her husband had been killed. Though they had planned her third pregnancy, she was now barely able to support the two children they had before his death. Blaming sexism for much of the organized opposition to abortion among religious leaders, he said, “There are many reasons why a woman needs an abortion. Sometimes rape, sometimes because she says ‘I can’t be responsible for this child and can’t bring a child into this world I can’t care for.’”

Yeah, religious leaders oppose abortion because they hate women. Personally, I’d be more likely to think that given the consequences of abortion–significantly increased rates of depression, substance abuse, mental illness, and suicide–recommending abortion would be much more a sign that one was a sexist than not. And Davis’ case is a perfect example of how these consequences comes about. A woman in a terrible situation like the one he describes who resorts to killing a child because of difficult circumstances is bound at some point to be burdened with crushing guilt for having deprived one of her children of the gift of life because he or she couldn’t do what was necessary to provide for it. Is it really better for the child to kill it than to give it up for adoption? Is that really the position Davis wants to claim is Christian?

Goff mentions two other individuals in her attempt to discover a “Christian case for abortion rights.” One is Jon O’Brien, head of Catholics for Choice, a political front group that is no more Catholic than People for the American Way. The other is Gloria Feldt, the former president of Planned Parenthood (!), who relates a story about a Catholic priest who rejected Christian morality and so became an Episcopal priest. Feldt, who I suspect knows as much about “faith” as she knows about particle physics, says women clergy will change minds:

Feldt, who now runs Take the Lead, a group devoted to increasing gender parity in leadership positions, predicted women’s leadership may ultimately play a defining role in where faith and reproductive rights intersect in the future. “If you think about the underlying misogyny in the history of most major religions, it’s not surprising we’ve been dealing with these issues [reproductive rights] in those terms,” she said. “I do believe that the ascent of more women in the clergy, at least in the mainstream religions at this point, is going to make a huge difference. They simply see the world through a different lens.”

There is some truth to what she is saying. Lots of women clergy, particularly in the mainline denominations, see the world through the lens of feminist politics rather than Christian theology and ethics, and so have bent their churches in directions that are more suggestive of apostasy than faith. But there are also women clergy in denominations like mine (the Evangelical Presbyterian Church) as well as Pentecostal and independent churches that don’t fit Feldt’s stereotyping and reject the model of the abortion-loving woman.

If that’s the best Goss could do to find “Christians” who would tell her that there is a “Christian case for abortion rights” even as they fail to offer one, I’d say it’s a certainty that the pro-abortion case will continue to be made by Molech-worshipers of a decidedly secular mind. The “Christian case for abortion rights” is a mirage, and always has been.

In the United States Senate this week, Democrats declared open season on pregnant women.

A hearing was held on Senate bill 1696, which has the Orwellian title, “Women’s Health Protection Act.” Introduced in November by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the bill has 35 co-sponsors (listed below) who apparently believe that women considering whether to have an abortion deserve less protection than a pet ferret with a tummy ache. The bill would essentially strip states of the power to regulate the practice of abortion within their jurisdictions, and give a license to kill to the Kermit Gosnells of the world.

Rather than write about the hearing, which was full of campaign sound bites and other claptrap, I thought I’d take a look at the bill. I’m no A.S. Haley (though I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once), but this is a layman’s reaction to some of the actual language, as opposed to the propaganda about “women’s health.” (Matthew Clark, Associate Counsel for Government Affairs and Media Advocacy with the American Center for Law and Justice, does something similar at Red State.)

The bill opens with “findings,” which are usually evidence-based reasons for why the bill is needed, but in this case nothing more than ideologically-based assertions:

(1) Access to safe, legal abortion services is essential to women’s health and central to women’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States.

See what I mean? The first half of that sentence is debatable, given that 97% of abortions are elective and have nothing to do with preserving the health much less life of the mother, and the second is meaningless rhetoric.

(4) Since 2010, there has been an equally dramatic increase in the number of laws and regulations singling out abortion that threaten women’s health and their ability to access safe abortion services by interfering with health care professionals’ ability to provide such services. Congressional action is now necessary to put an end to these restrictions. In addition, there has been a dramatic increase in the passage of laws that blatantly violate the constitutional protections afforded women, such as bans on abortions prior to viability.

No specifics are mentioned because this bill isn’t meant to deal with a specific objectionable form of state regulation. It’s supposed to deal with all regulation. Like all nine “findings,” it present no argument, much less evidence, but simply asserts what apparently everyone is supposed to know is true. How any given regulation “interferes with health care professionals ability” to provide “safe abortion services” is irrelevant.

(5) Legal abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the United States. That safety is furthered by regulations that are based on science and are generally applicable to the medical profession or to medically comparable procedures.

As the editors of National Review Online pointed out in an excellent editorial yesterday, there is no “comparable” medical procedure to abortion. This is “something recognized by the Supreme Court, which describes the act as ‘unique’ and ‘inherently different’ from other surgeries. And, of course, it is: Abortion is in almost no instance a therapeutic procedure — its usual motive is simply the termination of an inconvenient human life.” Blumenthal and his comrades think, I’m sure, that abortion is comparable to a cholecystectomy, since both involved the removal of tissue from the body. In addition to the obvious moral difference between an unborn child and a gall bladder, one might also note that it is unethical for a doctor to remove a healthy organ without medical reason, while abortion is almost always the killing of a healthy person with a separate genetic identity from his or her mother for no medical reason. In other words, abortion is not “comparable” to other medical procedures, and must be regulated for the unique surgical operation that it is.

(7) These restrictions harm women’s health by reducing access not only to abortion services but also to the other essential health care services offered by the providers targeted by the restrictions, including contraceptive services, which reduce unintended pregnancies and thus abortions, and screenings for cervical cancer and sexually transmitted infections. These harms fall especially heavily on low-income women, women of color, and women living in rural and other medically underserved areas.

It’s safe to say that this wouldn’t be a Democrat-sponsored bill if it didn’t include a racial component, and it includes that without any evidence for its assertion. This is also obviously the “Planned Parenthood Endangered Abortion Mill Finding,” since the threats to PP’s baby-killing business are pretty much the only thing referenced in that first sentence. The typical gynecologist or obstetrician who ceased to perform abortions wouldn’t shutter his office, whereas Planned Parenthood does when its primary money-making operation gets regulated in a way that PP considers “burdensome.”

(8) The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions has been widely varying access to abortion services such that a woman’s ability to exercise her constitutional rights is dependent on the State in which she lives.

Again, no argument, just assertion, probably because the argument is embarrassing in its stupidity and implications. The argument essentially is that if abortion clinics are not as prevalent as Starbucks shops, women will have to travel to get one, and that will make it difficult for some because they don’t have the money or means of transportation, etc. This is a theory of constitutional rights no one has even contemplated in any other area of life because it is so inane. By this reckoning, if I don’t have the money to buy a newspaper, my right to freedom of the press is abridged. Just because you have a right to something doesn’t mean the government has to clear away any and all obstacles (including financial ones) to your exercising that right, especially if–as is supposedly the case with restrictions on gun ownership, beloved by these same senators despite the Second Amendment–they are obstacles that have to do with legitimate public safety concerns.

Those are some of the problems just with the findings. It gets worse.

Congressional bills usually include a section of definitions of terms, and normally it isn’t a big deal. It is here:

(2) Abortion provider.—The term “abortion provider’’ means a health care professional who performs abortions.

(4) Health care professional.—The term “health care professional’’ means a licensed medical professional (including physicians, certified nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) who is competent to perform abortions based on clinical training.

In other words, this bill recognizes a host of people besides MDs as abortionists. Midwives, nurses, and PAs, according to the sponsors, should operate with the same freedom to perform surgery as medical doctors. These senators are people who are normally outraged at the idea that a person without a four-year degree in education would be allowed to teach children, but they are perfectly comfortable with certified nurse midwives performing potentially life-threatening surgery. (For just one example, California–as pro-choice a state as there is–does not allow CNMs to practice medicine or perform surgery.) This bill would effectively eliminate the safeguards against unqualified people working in health care from performing abortions, thus endangering women.

Section 4 is where the real mischief comes in:

SEC. 4. PROHIBITED MEASURES AND ACTIONS.

(a) General Prohibitions.—The following limitations or requirements are unlawful and shall not be imposed or applied by any government because they single out the provision of abortion services
for restrictions that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures, they do not significantly advance women’s health or the safety of abortion services, and they make abortion services more difficult to access:
(1) A requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests or follow specific medical procedures in connection with the provision of an abortion, unless generally required for the provision of medically comparable procedures.

As noted above, there are no “medically comparable procedures” to abortion, so this is already problematic. Even to the extent that there are, however, there are grave difficulties. For one example, in most places only doctors with surgical licenses are allowed to perform surgery (though other medical personnel may assist), while this bill opens the floodgates to others. For another, this bill prohibits states from requiring specific tests unless they are “generally required for the provision of medically comparable procedures.” What other “comparable” procedure might require an ultrasound on a fetus, pray tell?

(2) A limitation on an abortion provider’s ability to delegate tasks, other than a limitation generally applicable to providers of medically comparable procedures.

In other words, states may not prohibit a physician’s assistant from delegating the task of removing the body parts of a dismembered fetus from a woman’s womb after the fetus has been pulled apart to a nurse’s assistant, if doing so is not prohibited in “medically comparable procedures,” of which there are none (and therefore no prohibitions!).

(5) A requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements of facilities where abortions are performed, or the credentials or hospital privileges or status of personnel at such facilities, that is not imposed on facilities or the personnel of facilities where medically comparable procedures are performed.

This is a real joke. Until recently, abortion clinics have been the least-regulated, least-supervised of all medical facilities. After the Gosnell horror was exposed, some states (including Pennsylvania) decided that enough was enough, and that abortuaries had to be brought up to the same standards and supervised with the same rigor as others. Abortionists, they also decided, needed to have the same standards applied to them that other surgeons had (hospital admitting privileges, for instance). This provision would go back to the status quo ante, and free the Gosnells of the profession from any worry that the state was going to stick its nose into their dirty business.

(6) A requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make one or more medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide abortion services.

The termite in the floorboards here is the expression “medically unnecessary.” What does that mean? I take it to mean pretty much any visit that doesn’t involved the actual abortion. In other words, any state requirement that a woman be enabled to make a fully-informed decision is prohibited. Consider this: what other surgery does a person undergo without any prior consultation, without being fully informed about the risks and possible side effects, on the day they decide to have it done the same way you would go to a dentist and say, “clean my teeth”? That’s what Blumenthal and Company want women dealing with tremendous emotional distress and possible pressure from a man to do.

(b) Other Prohibited Measures or Actions.—
(1) In general.—A measure or action that restricts the provision of abortion services or the facilities that provide abortion services that is similar to any of the prohibited limitations or requirements described in subsection (a) shall be unlawful if such measure or action singles out abortion services or make abortions services more difficult to access and does not significantly advance women’s health or the safety of abortion services.

This is the “just in case we forgot anything, that’s also outlawed” section. If a state does anything, no matter how much sense it makes medically or scientifically, that causes an abortion clinic to close, or places any financial burden on its owner or operator, or in any infringes on women’s ability to get an abortion any time, anywhere, or for any reason, the feds forbid it. (The part from “and does not significantly…” is the legislative equivalent of Charlie Brown’s teacher talking, since the sponsors know that lots of federal judges will say that there’s no such thing as a restriction that does either of those things.)

(2) Prima facie case.—To make a prima facie showing that a measure or action is unlawful under paragraph (1) a plaintiff shall demonstrate that the measure or action involved—
(A) singles out the provision of abortion services or facilities in which abortion services are performed;
or
(B) impedes women’s access to abortion services based on one or more of the factors described in paragraph (3).

In other words, if a state regulation mentions abortion or abortion clinics, it is assumed that it is prohibited by the bill. It is also assumed that it is prohibited if it does any of the following:

(3) Factors.—Factors for a court to consider in determining whether a measure or action impedes access to abortion services for purposes of paragraph (2)(B) include the following:
(A) Whether the measure or action interferes with an abortion provider’s ability to provide care and render services in accordance with her or his good-faith medical judgment.
(B) Whether the measure or action is reasonably likely to delay some women in accessing abortion services.
(C) Whether the measure or action is reasonably likely to directly or indirectly increase the cost of providing abortion services or the cost for obtaining abortion services (including costs associated with travel, childcare, or time off work).
(D) Whether the measure or action requires, or is reasonably likely to have the effect of necessitating, a trip to the offices of the abortion provider that would not otherwise be required.
(E) Whether the measure or action is reasonably likely to result in a decrease in the availability of abortion services in the State.
(F) Whether the measure or action imposes criminal or civil penalties that are not imposed on other health care professionals for comparable conduct or failure to act or that are harsher than penalties imposed on other health care professionals for comparable conduct or failure to act.
(G) The cumulative impact of the measure or action combined with other new or existing requirements or restrictions.

That’s a lot of legalese to swallow, but I can translate: “Any state regulation that impedes a woman from obtaining an abortion under any circumstances or for any reason is prohibited by this act.”

But even that is not enough for these abortion worshipers:

(c) Other Prohibitions.—The following restrictions on the performance of abortion are unlawful and shall not be imposed or applied by any government:
(1) A prohibition or ban on abortion prior to fetal viability.

Ah, yes, “fetal viability.” There’s one definition included in this bill that I didn’t mention above, because it’s needed here:

(7) Viability.—The term “viability’’ means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, based on the particular facts of the case before her or him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.

What this definition does is sever the question of when a baby can survive from any scientific basis, and places it squarely in the hands of the abortionist, who has a financial stake in the decision. “Fetal viability,” them is whenever the abortionist says it is, which renders the ability of a state to prohibit abortion after fetal viability moot, in violation, ironically enough, of Roe v. Wade.

(2) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating physician, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant woman’s life or health.

As we have seen for over forty years now, this translates to, “if a health professional thinks a woman might lose a night’s sleep over being pregnant, we can go ahead and kill the kid.”

(3) A restriction that limits a pregnant woman’s ability to obtain an immediate abortion when a health care professional believes, based on her or his good-faith medical judgment, that delay would pose a risk to the woman’s health.

Nothing that stands in the way of immediate gratification will do.

(4) A measure or action that prohibits or restricts a woman from obtaining an abortion prior to fetal viability based on her reasons or perceived reasons or that requires a woman to state her reasons before obtaining an abortion prior to fetal viability.

And at this point of overkill they are just repeating themselves to make sure that every state and every court understands what they are saying:

WE WILL NOT PUT UP WITH ANY OBSTACLE TO THE SECULAR SACRAMENT AT ALL!!! DO WE MAKE OURSELVES CLEAR???

*************************

This bill has no chance whatsoever of passage. It would be buried in the House of Representatives, and might well not even make it out of the Senate. But I still think the time and effort that have gone into it tell us something about its sponsors and their supporters in the pro-abortion movement.

1) The Senate sponsors of this bill must know that it has no chance of becoming law. That being the case, one must conclude that this is about politics, and above all about perpetuating the meme about the Republican “war on women.” There are a couple of problems with that. First, there is no polling that says that more than around a quarter of Americans support completely unregulated, unrestricted abortion. Most Americans either would ban it altogether or put a variety of restrictions on it. The kind of restrictions that this bill is specifically aimed at are overwhelmingly supported by Americans. Yet the supporters, knowing that most voters aren’t single-issue types, are wagering that by throwing red meat at their fanatically pro-abortion base, they can energize them enough to make an electoral difference.

2) The pro-abortion movement, despite its occasional tactical retreats, has never wavered from its ultimate goal of having abortion not only universally available, but socially acceptable. They know that when something becomes a matter of total indifference to government, it becomes a matter of social acceptability among the population. After all, if abortion is too trivial for the state to regulate, how important can it be? As that mindset grows, getting an abortion will become no more consequential than having your nails done. The idea that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” is anathema to the pro-aborts, who will only be happy when everyone accepts its moral legitimacy, so that they can feel good about being moral monsters.

3) This bill, then, means that Senate Democrats (and, I would contend, the vast majority of House Democrats as well) have thrown in their lot with the Molech cult. They, too, believe that the will and moral convictions of the American people are of no consequence. They, too, believe that abortion should be treated as an inconsequential matter deserving of social acceptance. They, too, believe that abortion should be as easy to obtain as a hair dye job, and easier than breast augmentation or an appendectomy. They, too, want to put women in danger so as to satisfy their bloodlust. And they also think that doing so will protect their phony-baloney jobs.

It’s time we sent them a message: “You see that flash of light in the corner of your eye? That’s your career dissipation light. It just went into high gear.”

Here’s who should get that message:

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Tammy Baldwin (D-IL)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Edward Markey (D-MA)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

Shaheen, Merkley, Franken, and Coons are running for re-election this year. They should be made to own this and explain why they are in favor of unrestricted, unregulated abortion. In addition, those running in all of the other Senate races should be questioned on whether they would support this legislative abortion and why.

The contraception mandate was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today. According to the Daily Caller:

“We are encouraged by the arguments today. The justices seemed deeply skeptical of the government’s arguments that Americans who open a closely held family business give up their right to religious freedom and can be subject to the mandates that they do,” Lori Windham, counsel for Hobby Lobby with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said after oral agreements. “The Green family has long operated Hobby Lobby consistently with its religious beliefs and religious principles. They hope to be able [to continue] doing so.”

“The choice that the government has forced on us is out of step with the history of our great nation founded on religious freedom.  We believe that no American should lose their religious freedom just because they open a family business,” Barbara Green, co-founder of Hobby Lobby added on the steps of the Supreme Court. “We were encouraged by today’s arguments, we are thankful that the Supreme Court has heard our case, and we prayerfully await the justices’ decision.”

Also outside the Court this morning, two of the high priestesses of the cult of Molech managed to demonstrate that they haven’t got a clue what this case is about, what the reality of contraception availability in America is, or that they give a hoot in hell about any religion other than that of their demon:

“What the court heard today is that if it were to find for the plaintiffs in this case it would be the first time the court of this country had proactively extinguished the rights of any Americans. This is about all women,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America.

“Our bodies are not our bosses’ business,” she added.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards also weighed in, saying the case showed “the importance of having women on the Supreme Court.”

“I was so proud to be there as a woman who cares about women’s health to have the justices talk about the fact that what’s at stake in this case is whether millions of women and their right to preventive care, including birth control, is trumped by a handful of CEOs who have their own personal opinions about birth control,” Richards said, adding that she is optimistic the court will rule in favor of the government’s mandate.

It is fortunate for their cause that the lawyers for the government aren’t so stupid as to try this kind of propagandistic nonsense on the justices. The Supremes are not the low-information voters or college freshman/faculty lounge lizards that lap this kind of drivel up. It is unfortunate for the cause of religious freedom that those lawyers are smarter than this, because it means that we’re all going to have to wait it out until June to see if the First Amendment is still operative for those who don’t subscribe to the culture of death.

Everyone in Washington knows that the President’s submission of a 2015 budget was nothing more than Kabuki theater, especially since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had announced a couple of days before that the Senate would not be passing a budget this year. But it still pays to go through it to see what it says about the administration that submitted it. You never know what you’ll find in it.  Guy Benson of Townhall and Hot Air found this in the section devoted to the State Department:

That of the funds appropriated under Title III of this Act, not less than $575,000,000 should be made available for family planning/reproductive health, including in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species.

“Reproductive health,” of course, is the Molech cult’s favorite euphemism for abortion. So here’s what this seems to be saying: $575 million of taxpayer money, which may not be used to fund abortions in the United States, is going to be used to fund abortion in order to cut down the human population where it “threatens” animal or plant life.

The United States government is going to pay for human beings to be killed in the womb in order to save the overseas equivalent of the delta smelt.

Every time you think they’ve sunk as low as they can go, the death worshippers find a way to sink even lower.

I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion. [Emphasis in original, though it was in italics, not bold.]

–Abortion activist Jessica DelBalzo, writing at RH Reality Check, under consideration as the Press Secretary for the Culture of Death Party

Next Page »