The fact that the radical feminist and pro abortion lobbies did it is no excuse. The party has allowed abortion to corrupt it. There need to be consequences.
The Women’s Health Protection Act would codify Roe v. Wade and make all abortion restrictions illegal. Every Democratic Senator except one—Joe Manchin, of course—voted for the bill yesterday in lockstep with party leaders, despite its brutal, unethical and radical objective. [In the House as well, only one Democrat thought that the lives of full term unborn human babies were worth protecting.] The bill would allow doctors to abort unborn babies at any point in a pregnancy if they determine that allowing the pregnancy to continue to birth “would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
Note the woke weasel words in that proposed law. Although the title of the bill and the long introductory argument for the law mention women prominently, the proposed wording of the law itself doesn’t mention women anywhere, as an obvious sop to the trans community, which seeks to erase all gender distinctions.
The major linguistic deceit, however, is embodied by “pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life.” Why is that phrase necessary if “health” is also in the sentence? After all, if something threatens to kill you, that’s a risk to your “health.” Ah, but “a risk to the pregnant ‘person’s’ life” is far more inclusive than that. In the “Findings and Purpose” section, right up front, we are told that
Abortion services are essential to health care and access to those services is central to people’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States. Abortion access allows people who are pregnant to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, their families, and their lives.
Risks to “life,” in this bill, mean risks to career plans, economic opportunities and other objectives. Meanwhile, the life of the unborn child is not mentioned or alluded to in any way. In the “is isn’t what it is” world of the bill, the victims of abortions literally do not exist. The closest the proposed law comes to acknowledging the fetus is in its definition of “viability”: “the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.” The baby is reduced in this clever word salad to an adjective.
The definition of “abortion services” in the “Terms” section, incredibly, never states what an abortion is! This continues the ongoing progressive strategy of defending abortion by deliberately refusing to be transparent about the procedure’s goal: ending a nascent human life. Thus we see the deceitful focus on “choice,” and the bill seeking to eliminate any limitation on abortion being given a title that doesn’t mention abortion: “The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021.” What are abortion services, according to the bill (which was passed in the House)? This:
The term “abortion services” means an abortion and any medical or non-medical services related to and provided in conjunction with an abortion (whether or not provided at the same time or on the same day as the abortion).
Abortion means abortion! Got it! You see, it is impossible to define abortion fairly and accurately without mentioning the icky part about having to kill a separate human being. The pro-abortion Party’s solution is to not define it at all, just legalize it. The law would bypass issues of viability, the basis on which the Supreme Court is likely to significantly narrow Roe v. Wade, by ignoring viability entirely. A nine-month-old embryo, completely viable and biologically identical to a newborn baby, could still be aborted—that is, killed—if it posed a risk to the mother’s broadly defined “life.”
Senate Democrats decided to declare themselves as enemies of the unborn in defiance of a clear cultural consensus based not on misogyny but reality and human rights. A majority of Americans oppose abortion in the second and third trimesters, according all recent polls. The U.S. is already is one of eight countries, including those paragons of humanism, China and North Korea, that allow abortions past 20 weeks. Only 3 of Europe’s 50 countries allow abortion past 15 weeks, the same limit embodied in Mississippi’s abortion law now being considered by the Supreme Court.
Yet the Democratic Party decided to push for an unequivocal “Unborn Lives Don’t Matter” bill, and show that the party was proud of it, with Senate Leader Chuck Schumer bringing it to a vote despite a certain defeat.
We should be glad he did, however. The vote informed the public of just how corrupt one of our two major parties has become. It now believes that killing viable unborn children is a virtuous act, and it has come to that belief, meaning that it is willing to sacrifice millions of lives, for a purpose no less grubby than a ruthless quest for votes and power.
__________________
Source: Washington Free Beacon. The New York Times headline? “Senate Republicans Block Abortion Rights Measure.” Nah, who says the Times spins the news and is biased in favor of progressives and Democrats?
Ethics Alarms 
Maybe republicans could start trolling in response by touting how the abortion of the unborn will contribute to minimizing budgetary expenditures for law enforcement and penitentiaries as it will keep the undesirable/deplorables out of society and reduce future prison populations.
Or like Ann Coulter has said: “If they ever discover a gay gene, guess who’s getting aborted?”
Jack said:
… the proposed wording of the law itself doesn’t mention women anywhere, as an obvious sop to the trans community …
I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrats that, while the whole “inclusion” thing may be all the rage now, it is an extremely vulnerable and dicey proposition to embrace it so comprehensively?
Apparently not.
The baby is reduced in this clever word salad to an adjective.
The tragic thing is, they esteem an unborn child higher in their verbiage than in their actual opinion of it, even at this microscopic level.
A majority of Americans oppose abortion in the second and third trimesters, according all recent polls.
…
The vote informed the public of just how corrupt one of our two major parties has become. It now believes that killing viable unborn children is a virtuous act, and it has come to that belief, meaning that it is willing to sacrifice millions of lives, for a purpose no less grubby than a ruthless quest for votes and power.
Ironic, though, thinking that a completely counter-majoritarian position will bring them more power. I’m not quite sure how that works, but then again, perhaps the Democrats are playing some sort of Jiu-Jitsu in a five-dimensional chess way that none of us mere proles can reckon.
Is it asking too much (a compromise) for a woman to make a decision about her pregnancy within the first 15 weeks?
Apparently it is. Which just goes to show you that “compromise,” when it comes to the Left (especially but by no means exclusively on the issue of abortion) means agreeing with them completely or be accused of racism and hate crimes against women.
Compromise requires some modicum of tolerance for less than total victory on both sides. The Left, on abortion, has shown it has no room for leeway at all, not even when it comes to government funding of the actual procedure or even the most facially reasonable restrictions.
So I guess this is a long-winded “yes.” 🙂
A nine-month-old embryo, completely viable and biologically identical to a newborn baby, could still be aborted—that is, killed—if it posed a risk to the mother’s broadly defined “life.”
A pregnant person’s broadly defined “life.” C’mon, man!
Was it a brain fart – calling a full-term an embryo – or is that how Democrats now define a fetus?
As I have said more than a few times, the Democratic party was once the party of the Catholic Church, of Irish and Italian working men, and of labor unions. However, this was also at the time when the two political parties basically agreed on the social compact, hard work being rewarded, intact families being best, and so on.
Then women got the right to vote, and the inevitable march toward abortion becoming a major issue started. We got there in 1972, and, the party made the bet that it could get and hold power based on the votes of women and beta or whipped partners.
A modest proposal: Lower the voting age to conception! The Dems will be anti-abortions in a New York minute!
A more modest proposal: outlaw the Democratic Party. Let folks like Manchin form a new party.
This is why I can’t vote for Democrats anymore. The entire party has been taken over by a group that wants to turn our entire society into “The Giver.” In the progressive point of view, life should not be hard at all, we should all be able to do what we will, and if anyone calls us out, they are being “judgmental and intolerant.” Attacking moral standards as oppressive or intolerant is ominous.
A philosopher friend of mine once shared with me this challenge to pro-abortion people. He said, Ask them if they support measures to protect the environment and slow climate change. When they respond in the affirmative, then ask why the support those measures. They’ll probably say something like “For our future generations.” Then hit them with this: “So you care about children not yet even conceived but not for those children in utero now?”
That’s an interesting way to frame the debate. I’m going to steal that (with attribution to an unnamed philosopher).
. . . ask why they support . . . The typo bug has bitten me!!
It seems the Democrats party has not only left aside its traditional base of the hardworking blue-collar worker of old. The democratic party has now left aside humanity and morality as well.