The Democrats are not too happy with the vote by the House of Representatives to ban abortions after 20 weeks, when there is good reason to believe that the fetus can feel pain.
Last night’s House vote wasn’t a bad dream.
It’s actually terrifying that 228 members of Congress voted to stand between a woman and her doctor when it comes to her health care decisions, but here we are the next day, and that’s what happened.
These moments can’t pass with a shrug of the shoulders, or by crossing our fingers and hoping that it never becomes law. The reality is that bills like this are making headway in state legislatures across the country — and if people like us don’t speak out now, then how will we stop them?
Add your name today to say you’ll stand up to threats on women’s health:
From: Lindsay Siler, BarackObama.com
Subject: I can’t believe this just happened:
This just actually happened:
The House of Representatives passed one of the most unbelievable, unconstitutional attacks on women’s health in a long time.
It’s a bill written by Republican Arizona Congressman Trent Franks, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks, except in extremely limited circumstances — a direct legislative challenge to Roe v. Wade.
And 228 members of Congress just voted for it.
Maybe they weren’t paying attention to the reaction of Americans across the country last year who rejected candidates who wanted to restrict a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care.
That’s a message they need to hear loud and clear right now — if you think politicians have no right to get between a woman and her health decisions, add your name and say you won’t stand for it.
This bill made it out of the House Judiciary Committee thanks to the votes of 23 Republicans — all men, of course.
And Rep. Franks objected when opponents tried to raise the issue of rape, saying, “…you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.”
Women made their voices very clear last year when it came to the extreme positions that some elected officials took on women’s health. But that hasn’t stopped conservative politicians from trying to repeal Obamacare, block the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, and push an agenda that uses terminology like “legitimate rape.”
Making progress on smart health policy isn’t easy, but when Congress is spending its time actively trying to chip away at a woman’s rights, it feels impossible.
We can’t just sit back and hope it goes away — we need to speak up.
OFA supporters are going to be on the front lines reminding Congress we’re here and we care about women’s health.
Join the fight today:
National Director of Issue Campaigns
Organizing for Action
What does abortion have to do with women’s health? Is a woman’s health improved when she has an abortion? It would not seem that the health of the patients of Dr. Kermit Gosnell were greatly improved by his services. And, of course, abortion is decidedly unhealthy for those girls who haven’t had the luck to be born yet.
Notice how they never really want to talk about abortion. I think they would just as soon not use the word at all. Instead they say “women’s health” and “choice” and refuse to credit pro-lifers with any motive except to put women down. Why all of the euphemisms? Why don’t they simply come right out and say, “We believe a woman has an inalienable right to destroy her child right up to the moment of birth, and maybe a minute after”? Why can’t they bring themselves to say, “Yes, we know the fetus might feel pain but it isn’t really human and the right of the mother to eliminate it takes precedence over its right to life”? That really is what they seem to believe. Why not say it? Why the effort to evade the simple fact that abortion is the destruction of a fetus and the debate really should be whether or not we are killing a human being when we perform an abortion.
That is the debate they don’t want. Instead they try to make it about “choice” ignoring the small matter that the person, or thing, at the center of this debate is given no choice at all. Some people label themselves as pro-choice, stating that even though they oppose abortion personally, they believe that every woman should have the right to choose for herself. This is nonsense. If an abortion is simply another medical procedure, removing a shapeless clump of cells, then there is no more a moral component to the matter than having an infected appendix removed. If, however, this is a human being, than abortion is murder, pure and simple. This is what the debate ought to be about, not choice.
For, if an abortion involved the murder of a human being, then there can be no individual choice about the matter at all. I may not say that I personally oppose robbing banks but believe that everyone should be have the right to choose whether to rob banks. Nor is morality an individual matter, no matter what the moral relativist say about it. The important moral or ethical questions always involve out relations with out fellow human beings. A person alone on a desert island need not consider any moral questions at all, and is free to do whatever they like. I cannot kill my neighbor for blowing leaves onto my lawn and then say to the police and the court, “your morality says that killing is wrong, but my morality says that it is perfectly okay to kill”. The judge would probably assume that I am trying for the insanity defense.
So, this is the question. Is the fetus alive and human. If not, than abortion is simply another medical procedure and the state has no right to ban it. If so, than abortion is murder and a greater evil than slavery ever was and the state is under an obligation to end it.
- I can’t believe this just happened (ncrenegade.com)
- The Concept of ‘Fetal Pain’ Is Bullshit (jezebel.com) Is it acceptable to kill a person who is unable to feel pain? A lot of moral confusion here.
- House Votes to Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy (bloomberg.com)
- Planned Parenthood files suit against state law (cjonline.com) Of course they do. Their profits are at stake.
- The Left’s Life Problem (nationalreview.com) Actually they have a death problem, in that their policies seem to be consistently pro-death.