How Many Kids Will Die Before Pro-Lifers Are Willing to Move the Ball Toward Life?

riverkwai

Up in Washington, DC, House Republicans have the opportunity to save the lives of children and put the Democrats on defense all in one turn. They are set to consider legislation that would prohibit abortions in the United States after 20 weeks, which is the point a child in the womb can feel pain.

In light of the Kermit Gosnell horror story, you would expect a majority of Americans would support this legislation. They do. The GOP put in exceptions for rape and incest so the left cannot demonize them as being at war with women. As Trent Franks of Arizona noted, the instances of abortions due to rape is not high, nor are the instances of abortion due to incest. While they happen, they are not most common.

In other words, the House Republicans are set to restrict abortions in America in a way that the overwhelming majority of both men and women in the United States support. This will result in lives saved. It will put the Democrats on the defense on abortion in a way they haven’t been since the partial birth abortion ban.

Sadly, like Lt. Colonel Nicholson unwilling to blow up the damn bridge over the River Kwai, some pro-life groups are unable to bring themselves to actually save children from having their brains sucked out or injected with saline or all the other gruesome ways they are slaughtered. These pro-life groups have decided it is better that all children to be aborted keep getting aborted rather than spare the majority unless the law gets rid of the exception for rape and incest.

This is having ramifications for the legislation. And the discontent causing those ramifications is coming from the Georgia pro-life movement.

Multiple sources tell me that pro-life activists in Georgia are encouraging Georgia Republicans to vote against the legislation and withdraw their support of it unless the rape/incest exception goes away. Congressman Paul Broun has removed himself as a sponsor already and I hear other members of the Georgia delegation thinking of running for the United States Senate are considering a no vote to placate pro-life activists in Georgia — specifically Georgia Right to Life.

This is unfortunate.

The legislation will save lives if passed. The all or nothing approach will continue to lead to nothing. While I am sympathetic with pro-lifers who say if they start making exceptions soon they’ll have nothing, they should recognize that right now they have nothing and this is a meaningful step in their direction. It is incrementalism that advances goals without sacrificing the principle.

Any pro-life congressman who takes the position that all abortions should continue unless no abortions continue is not worth my time or support. Better we work toward saving lives than let this slaughter continue unabated.

Many pro-lifers have turned cynical and say the GOP is not really committed to ending abortion. They say the GOP is just using pro-life support to get elected, but that once elected the GOP prefers that pro-lifers are seen and not heard. Turns out it is the pro-life activist groups. They want the issue so bad as their reason for being, when given the chance to reduce the number of abortions in America they’d prefer to keep the killing going so they can keep the issue alive.

Imagine how the world would have been different if Harriet Tubman, Oskar Schindler, or Raoul Wallenberg had been Georgia pro-life activists. “Sorry, couldn’t save ’em all, so I let ’em all die!”

37 comments

  1. NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

    Either they are not really pro-life, or they would rather go for the “hail Mary” strategy rather than take the short yards in advancing towards the ultimate goal. It’s sad to waste an opportunity to advance.

  2. John Konop says:

    My questions for supporters of this bill?

    Since we know teenage pregnancy 3 out 4 times ends with welfare……how much extra money is in the bill to pay for this? Or do you want to force mothers to give up babies if they do not have the money for healthcare, food…….? If not is this just another unpaid mandate from Washington? Also what happens to a mother who has a miscarriage after 20 weeks?

    • John Konop says:

      To clarify the 20 week issue……if this bill passes it would force a woman to carry the misscarried baby full term……post 20 weeks….seems rather cruel to the parents…..tragically my wife and I have been through the miscarriage process twice…….last thing you need is the government in your face……

    • saltycracker says:

      Another strong case for first rate orphanages. DFACS would have better options and many children a better chance.

    • mpierce says:

      You are making the argument that it’s ok to go around killing people who are on public assistance in order to save money?

      The supporters believe the 20 week fetus is a person. Try looking at it from their point of view.

      • John Konop says:

        I am only pointing out the issues in the bill…….I am playing chess not checkers……It is checkers players on both sides that created this massive debt…..ie Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind…….I noticed you also avoided the miscarriage issue. Do you think a woman should be forced to carry a miscarried bay to full term?

              • John Konop says:

                Dude you are playing a game of semantics…YES OR NO should a woman be forced to carry to term a baby that is a late miscarriage? You first post Web Med as FACT…… and than after it points out you are WRONG…..you use the NYT……which does not deny the term called late miscarriage…..WOW!

                BTW about 1 million miscarriages happen a year. About 1 % are after 20 weeks via your own post……. That means this would effect about 10k women and families a year……

                • mpierce says:

                  Dude you are playing a game of semantics

                  Wasn’t looking to argue semantics. I thought it was interesting and somewhat relevant to the topic. Thus I added it for informational purposes and labeled it “Side Note”. Happy to admit I’m wrong and that many still use the term miscarriage beyond 20 weeks.

                  YES OR NO should a woman be forced to carry to term a baby that is a late miscarriage?

                  I thought my previous statement (see above @11.12am) answered that already: “No, I don’t think a woman should be forced to carry a miscarried baby to full term.” Was it somehow unclear?

                  • John Konop says:

                    ….I avoided it because I haven’t seen any indication that the statement was true…..

                    First you also said the above….Second does that mean you do not support the proposed legislation with or without an exception for the mother, health, rape and incest? If you do support it I am very confused?

                    • mpierce says:

                      First you also said the above

                      Yes I did. I have doubts that the bill will force women to carry miscarriages to term.

                      Second does that mean you do not support the proposed legislation

                      Also stated in the 11:12am comment: “Nor do I support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

                      with or without an exception for the mother, health, rape and incest?

                      I don’t support it with or without the exceptions.

                    • John Konop says:

                      It is very clear a late miscarriage is defined as an abortion. Facts are facts…………Show me in the proposed bill an exception for late miscarriages?

                      ………….A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia.

                      Miscarriage

                      Abortion – spontaneous; Spontaneous abortion; Abortion – missed; Abortion – incomplete; Abortion – complete; Abortion – inevitable; Abortion – infected; Missed abortion; Incomplete abortion; Complete abortion; Inevitable abortion; Infected abortion
                      Last reviewed: November 8, 2012.
                      A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. (Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called preterm deliveries.)

                      A miscarriage may also be called a “spontaneous abortion.” This refers to naturally occurring events, not to medical abortions or surgical abortions.

                      Other terms for the early loss of pregnancy include:

                      • Complete abortion: All of the products (tissue) of conception leave the body
                      • Incomplete abortion: Only some of the products of conception leave the body
                      • Inevitable abortion: Symptoms cannot be stopped and a miscarriage will happen
                      • Infected (septic) abortion: The lining of the womb (uterus) and any remaining products of conception become infected
                      • Missed abortion: The pregnancy is lost and the products of conception do not leave the body

                      The doctor may also use the term threatened miscarriage. The symptoms of this condition, abdominal cramps with or without vaginal bleeding, are a sign that a miscarriage may occur………..

                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002458/

                    • mpierce says:

                      H.R. 1797
                      (e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section the following definitions apply:

                      ‘‘(1) ABORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device—

                      ‘‘(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or
                      ‘‘(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than
                      ‘‘(i) after viability to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or
                      ‘‘(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.

                      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1797rh/pdf/BILLS-113hr1797rh.pdf

    • Ghost of William F Buckley says:

      PP has contributors who make their living conducting polls so I offer the recent Gallup poll with all respect to their occupation: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx#1

      Going by these numbers, there is a slight uptick in those who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, conversely a slight downward trend toward making them legal in any circumstance. People who consider themselves pro-life or pro-choice are much closer than ’96, with more pro-life than pro-choice, by a slim margin.

      However, digging deeper we find clear divides showing 80+% of Americans polled believe abortion should be legal if the woman’s life, physical or mental health are at risk by carrying the infant to full term.

      If the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest 75% of those polled believe abortion should be legal.

      Interesting numbers, they tell me the timing for this discussion will invoke passionate debate. I concur Eric, and others, observing GOP leadership may underestimate the risk for absolutism on the issue of when an abortion is legal.

      Abortion is an abomination, murder and elective abortions are not common in Western Countries, yet a return to abortion being illegal here seems unacceptable to me. That said, those in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade has increased roughly 10% since July, 2005.

      Perhaps a potential response to Mr. Konop’s point will be an expansion of Federal services to unwed mothers… Be careful of what you wish for.

  3. Dave Bearse says:

    On one hand 97% of scientists believe there is global warming resulting from greenhouse gases, yet it’s unproven. On the other there’s no medical consensus isn’t that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks, but hey, it’s a fact.

    An “overwhelming majority”?

    The bubble, it’s as robust as ever.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      I’d be curious if the GOP were to pass anti-abortion legislation if there would be a lot of outcry to return it to the way it was.

      The GOP isn’t nearly as bold as the democrats, though. Dems will rush in and within one term pass a monstrosity of a healthcare overhaul which may cost . . . well, who’s counting? On the other hand, the GOP finally gets in and calls for WAR! while simultaneously proclaiming the sanctity of life.

      Not that I agree with the ACA but at least the Dems had the decency to finally get it over with instead of holding the issue over the heads of the voters for a few decades as a campaign boost. People seem to think the Christian right controls the GOP but it’s more apparent to me that the GOP controls them. Or at least, uses them.

  4. northside101 says:

    As someone who believes that more power should be at the state level, and less on the Potomac, the first question that should be asked is: By what authority is Congress entitled to regulate abortion?” (Whether you are on the so-called “pro choice” or “pro-life” side). Article 1, Section 8 spells out the authority of Congress, and does mention a few crimes (Congress can provide for the punishing of counterfeiting and piracies and felonies committed on the high seas.) Article 3, Section 3 gives the Congress the power to declare the punishment of treason. Haven’t yet found the article which provides that Congress can punish abortion,,,perhaps because Congress was not given general police power in the Constitution (that has traditionally been a power of states and localities). Of course, neither can I find in there where Congress is authorized to pass a national health care plan…but then again, there are both conservatives and liberals who believe the Constitution is like a rubber band, a “living, breathing” document that evolves with the times. Lest we forget, a dozen years ago, many Republicans got behind President Bush’s ill-advised “No Child Left Behind” initiative, the biggest federal intrusion in recent times when it comes to education.

  5. northside101 says:

    As someone who believes that more power should be at the state level, and less on the Potomac, the first question that should be asked is: By what authority is Congress entitled to regulate abortion?” (Whether you are on the so-called “pro choice” or “pro-life” side). Article 1, Section 8 spells out the authority of Congress, and does mention a few crimes (Congress can provide for the punishing of counterfeiting and piracies and felonies committed on the high seas.) Article 3, Section 3 gives the Congress the power to declare the punishment of treason. Haven’t yet found the article which provides that Congress can punish abortion,,,perhaps because Congress was not given general police power in the Constitution (that has traditionally been a power of states and localities). Of course, neither can I find in there where Congress is authorized to pass a national health care plan…but then again, there are both conservatives and liberals who believe the Constitution is like a rubber band, a “living, breathing” document that evolves with the times. Lest we forget, a dozen years ago, many Republicans got behind President Bush’s ill-advised “No Child Left Behind” initiative, the biggest federal intrusion in recent times when it comes to education.

    • John Walraven says:

      This law would only apply to the District of Columbia. Congress has authority to enact laws governing the District.

  6. Ghost of William F Buckley says:

    PP has contributors who make their living conducting polls so I offer the recent Gallup poll with all respect to their occupation: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx#1

    Going by these numbers, there is a slight uptick in those who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, conversely a slight downward trend toward making them legal in any circumstance. People who consider themselves pro-life or pro-choice are much closer than ’96, with more pro-life than pro-choice, by a slim margin.

    However, digging deeper we find clear divides showing 80+% of Americans polled believe abortion should be legal if the woman’s life, physical or mental health are at risk by carrying the infant to full term.

    If the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest 75% of those polled believe abortion should be legal.

    Interesting numbers, they tell me the timing for this discussion will invoke passionate debate. I concur Eric, and others, observing GOP leadership may underestimate the risk for absolutism on the issue of when an abortion is legal.

    Abortion is an abomination, murder and elective abortions are not common in Western Countries, yet a return to abortion being illegal here seems unacceptable to me. That said, those in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade has increased roughly 10% since July, 2005.

    Perhaps a potential response to Mr. Konop’s point will be an expansion of Federal services to unwed mothers… Be careful of what you wish for.

  7. Jackster says:

    How close to we have to get to an agreement on a normal issue before the R’s start to distract their base and leaders from the actual issues with this sort of thing.

    It’s a distraction, redirection, change of subject, and the best part – a non starter.

  8. Three Jack says:

    Let’s be honest, there are too many people on the planet with too many more being born. And most of the newborns are being born into single parent situations supported by redistribution of funds via our antiquated tax/revenue systems. This is not sustainable.

    This country (and the planet for that matter) needs either more abortions or less baby making sex. The only feasible way to reduce baby making sex is to stop rewarding the baby maker as we do now with womb to tomb government assistance promised to the most irresponsible among us. Then we end up with a new generation of uneductated, irresponsible freeloaders whose sole purpose is to follow in methhead momma’s footsteps because that is all they know…see vicious circle.

    The legislation put forth by the GOP does nothing to address the underlying problem, it only serves as yet another carrot put out to gather fringe voter support. If the GOP is serious, then get about addressing the growing population of generational welfare recipients instead of attempting to appease the beckerheads of the world.

    • saltycracker says:

      Agree – use some of the misspent $ on orphanages. Better chance for the children and eliminates some of the incentive.

    • Harry says:

      If opponents of abortion are in the majority, how can they be described as “fringe voters”?

        • Napoleon says:

          That would be true but for the fact that without immigration (both legal and illegal) the U.S. would have negative population growth as the population as a whole has a birth rate that does not replace the older generation.

          That is true of all industrialized so-called “First World” nations. Most of the population growth worldwide is in the Third World. In fact, there was recently an article that pointed out that for the first time in our nation’s history, more caucasions died last year than were born. While that may be more of a commentary on the changing demographics in America than about abortion and overall birth rates, the fact is it negates the argument of over-population, especially in the US, being a problem resulting in a need to encourage abortion as birth control. If we are concerned about U.S. population growth, close the borders and freeze immigration. The population will naturally decline and our social welfare state as it currently exists will implode as there will be too many people receiving tax funded services and not enough people to pay taxes to fund the services.

          As a side note, in 1974, 1/3 of all abortions were performed on women under the age of 20. As of the most recent data I found, that number has dropped to less than 1/5 of abortions.

          Nearly 60% of abortions are performed on women in their 20’s and over 25% are women in their 30’s.

          Here are the two articles I’ve referenced:
          http://utahpolicy.com/bookmark/22908265-More-Whites-Died-than-Were-Born-Last-Year

          http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-09-23/news/36873754_1_abortion-rate-abortion-providers-hispanic-women

  9. dsean says:

    Is there an exception for life of the mother and/or medical futility? Part of the problem with a 20-week cutoff is that a lot of genetic and developmental abnormalities that are incompatible with life develop around this point in time, some of which can threaten the mother’s life.

Comments are closed.