House votes to ban late term abortion

The horrors revealed in the trial of notorious abortionist Kermit Gosnell shook even pro-choice citizens and it won’t be the same again for the abortion movement. Which is probably why a bill to ban late term abortion made it to a floor vote in the House of Representatives this week, and the rhetoric about it got so dramatic.

Some people want to live in denial, in the land of make believe where language can be manipulated to mean whatever you want it to, especially as you intend it to stir people to sentiments sympathetic to your goals. Never mind what those goals actually are, and mean, and especially cause.

Thus, ahead of the vote, President Obama spoke out to threaten its veto if it passed.

In a Statement of Administration Policy, the president called the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (H.R. 1797) “an assault on a woman’s right to choose” and said it shows “contempt for…the Constitution.”

Well that’s interesting. Examine just that one line. You couldn’t get more explicit in naming a bill exactly what it covers, first of all. It’s a bill to ban abortion procedures that kill unborn children by the most torturous methods, so they first suffer before they die. The bills sponsors and supporters want to protect these children. Period.

Continuing on…For the president to call it an “assault on a women’s right to choose” is just more of the same shell-game language engineering to manipulate public opinion. It assaults sensibilities over the long-misused word ‘choice’ and it needs to be challenged. What is the “woman’s right to choose”? That’s an incomplete sentence. The woman’s right to choose what?  Finish the sentence. It’s about a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child at some point in time before that child is fully delivered. More on that in a moment…

Next…The word “contempt” is very apt, but certainly debatable for its selective application. And applying it to the Constitution? That’s somewhere between embarrassing and baffling, for a former adjunct law lecturer, who called the Constitution a “charter of negative liberties” in a radio interview long before he ran for president.

As president, his administration has certainly shown what some would call contempt for the Constitution and at least disregard for constitutionally protected rights such as religious liberty, free speech and due process in different mandates, most notably the HHS contraceptive mandate. So there’s irony in the president’s claim. As if saying something is so, makes it so.

Back to the “woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child at some point in time before that child is fully delivered”, specifically the reference to “at some point.” Rep. Gwen Moore delivered quite an emotionally charged attack on the late term abortion ban under consideration on that day on the floor of the House, the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”

She said it would “callously and cavalierly limit access to abortion” and called it an “unconstitutional bill”, which it is not”. She heatedly said that concerning “the subject at hand, women’s right to a medically safe abortion, we once again see men taking leadership roles in invading the privacy of medical decisions of women.”

Some snips of Moore’s further comments:

“so that now we have a bill born of ignorance and disregard for medical science in every way, shape and form…with no concern for the biology, physiology, sociology of the woman”

That is just reckless pandering. It is slanderous, ungrounded and irrational. This is another case of saying what you want to believe, emphatically, turning truth on its head to perpetuate a narrative. And that narrative is what disregards medical science and the health of the woman, not to mention the child in her womb. And they definitely don’t want to mention the child in the womb.

“This bill is an abomination!” At its heart, at its foundation, is a disregard for the dignity and health of women.”

Quite the opposite. The ideology she represents disregards human dignity for all humans. The abortion movement denies or discounts the reality of post-abortion syndrome and the physical, mental, emotional, psychological and spiritual suffering women can and do go through after abortions.

Recall, this is argument over a bill to ban late term abortions. After 20 weeks, for crying out loud. And yet Moore talks about sympathy for women who find themselves with complications and in distress after 20 weeks, “due to rape or incest, findings of fetal anomalies.” Leaving aside the question of abortion being justified for any reason at any time, for now, this raises some obvious problems in reasoning. Complications and distress over pregnancy resulting from rape or incest probably occur long before 20 weeks. And “findings of fetal anomalies” patently justifies euthanasia of impaired or special needs children.

There was another emotional plea on the floor of the House this week. It was on behalf of protecting unborn children, by Rep. Virginia Foxx. She said “no one on the other side has acknowledged that those babies being murdered feel pain, nor that half of them are baby girls”. Good point, while we’re focusing on women. And, she adds, “an affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us.”

“One day we hope that life will cease to be evaluated on a sliding scale…Regardless of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot…

“May we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our nation…There’s nothing more important than protecting voiceless unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion.”

This goes to the Senate now. Senators need to hear from the people who elected them on this legislation. More pro-choice citizens are seeing things differently now, and their representatives need to hear about that.

Women’s health and the HHS

How oddly sci-fi that perceived connection has become.

There’s both science and fiction in the rendering of HHS policy by the Obama administration and its complicit media allies.

The’ ‘where are the women?‘ cry that resounded when a House oversight committee heard testimony from the first panel, which happened to cover religious leaders of various professions, was one dramatic moment. Fortunately, it’s been answered.

Then there’s the fact that the Obama adminstration and HHS Secretary Sebelius mandated the particular contraceptive drugs and sterilization procedures they did in the first place. Let’s take a look at that.

This column by Jenn Giroux is loaded with facts and resources, refuting pop culture notions that evolved into widely accepted truth without anyone ever proving or being asked to prove that they’re true.

The Birth Control Mandate has forced the issue of contraception to move from being the elephant in the room to center stage. Perhaps in time we will see that it was a hidden blessing for our country. For years pro-life organizations refused to discuss or take on this topic despite the fact that free access to birth control increases the number of surgical abortions[1][2]. Most people repeat over and over that birth control decreases the number of abortions. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, today for every child born in the US, there are an estimated 2 children killed in the womb from both surgical and chemical, abortifacient drug abortions [3]. What isn’t being talked about is that the new mandate also pre-disposes women to serious long term and permanent health problems. In conjunction with the defense of both religious liberty and the spiritual well-being of women, we must also refute the absurd and deceptive statement that “women are healthier on birth control.”

Providing free hormonal birth control to women under the guise of ‘preventative services’ and ‘women’s health’ is a lie and women of all faiths deserve to know the truth.

So read on, gentle reader. She lays out a strong and substantiated case.

Perhaps HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius should inform her President of the following before he makes additional statements to the press like “it is cheaper to prevent than to treat.” Consider this:

— Since 1975 there has been a 400% increase in “in situ” breast cancer among pre-menopausal women under 50 years old. This mirrors the increased use of birth control over these same years. (“In situ” is a medical term which means “at the location” [4].

— A Mayo Clinic study confirms that any young girl or woman who is on hormonal birth control for 4 years prior to their first full term pregnancy increases their breast cancer risk by 52%. [5]

— Women who use hormonal birth control for more than 5 years are four times more likely to develop cervical cancer. [6]

— The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization, classifies all forms of hormonal contraception as a Group 1 carcinogen. This group of cancer causing agents also includes cigarettes and asbestos. [7] Why is it that the FDA can require cigarette manufacturers to place warning labels and real life photos of corpses on cigarette packages to warn consumers of the health dangers yet they, in turn, take an equally harmful substance (hormonal birth control) and force companies to give it away free to young girls without parental consent and woman of all ages?

— For high school boys and men to take steroid drugs, it is a crime. Whereas girls and women taking steroid drugs (i.e. hormonal birth control) are now treated as if they are taking a sacred, life preserving vitamin that women cannot live without. [8]

— In October 2010 the NY Times carried an article about Hormone Replacement Therapy drugs. It quoted the America Medical Association (AMA) as warning women that these post-menopausal drugs which were originally marketed as keeping a women “young and sexy” were discovered instead to be more likely to cause advanced and deadly breast cancer.[9] It stopped short of making one other startling revelation: The only difference between hormone replacement therapy drugs which cause deadly breast cancer and the hormonal birth control drugs (now mandated by the Obama administration) is that the birth control drugs are six times the dosage — and are the very same drug!

Pause.

See those footnote numbers? They all correlate to good, sound documentation.

This is not information that should be kept from the public. Women deserve to be told the truth. They are not being warned that birth control methods are causing breast, liver, and cervical cancer. They are not being told about the “silent killer” effect which is causing them to unknowingly abort their babies. They are instead being told that they are healthier on birth control because it decreases ovarian and uterine cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, out of 100 women with cancer, 31 have breast cancer, 6 have uterine cancer, and 3 have ovarian cancer. This is not a healthy tradeoff of risks that is worth taking. [12]

If, indeed,” it is cheaper to prevent than to treat” then it is time for the White House, Kathleen Sebeilius, and all health agencies within the government to sound the warning trumpet to warn women on hormonal birth control about these devastating medical consequences.

Clearly, birth control does not help women at risk, it places women at risk.

And while we’re setting the record straight, let’s check in on the latest E.J. Dionne column that takes cover from the bogus ‘compromise’ or ‘accommodation’ President Obama purported to offer religious institutions and people with conscientious objections to his contraceptive mandate…but actually didn’t.

Can we all get one fact straight? As the president was announcing an “accommodation” in a press conference with Kathleen Sebelius on February 10 concerning the HHS contraceptive mandate, a rule was filed in the Federal Register that was unchanged (the word “unchanged” even appears four times in the final rule as filed) from the regulation the same Cabinet secretary had announced on January 20, that had been originally presented on August 1. That August rule had the narrowest of religious exemptions. And that rule was subsequently filed in the Federal Register.

Today E. J. Dionne makes reference to a compromise, suggesting that there is a bargaining table that Catholic bishops have walked away from. But there is no compromise.

As Cardinal Timothy Dolan put it, “We now have more questions than answers, more confusion than clarity.”

Confusion, of course, is exactly what the White House is counting on as a winning strategy: Characterize the debate as being simply about behind-the-times Catholics picking a fight on contraception. Insist that significant religious-liberty concerns are nothing but the Tea Party somehow having taken control of the Catholic bishops’ conference (which not so long ago Democrats would have considered a vital ally on just about anything but abortion).

True. Good point.

Accuse the Catholic bishops of being “violently anti-woman” and “demanding that the government step in and use the force and power and police power of the state to prevent women from taking birth control because the bishops have failed,” as chief Obama administration ally National Organization for Women president Terry O’Neill has.

Allies of the White House are doing an injustice to the truth by pretending that anything was fixed on February 10, that Friday the president announced an “accommodation.” It was nothing but a wink to allies — and allies, including Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards, were instrumental in blessing it. To even call it a compromise, never mind accept it, is to be the cheapest of dates.

I understand that Americans want to trust their president. I understand that religious Americans might want to be unconfrontational. But, folks, our liberty in America as we know it is under attack by this administration. Defend the defenders of religious liberty here. And let’s argue with facts, not wishful thinking about good intentions.

I always say “assume good intentions” in treating contested issues and testy debates. But that’s being charitable in this case, pushing the boundaries of reason.