Does this mean we’ll have to make a special place on Death Row for members of the Moral Majority?
Just when you thought “pro-lifers” couldn’t get any more abhorrent — after the clinic bombings, the doctor shootings, the attempt at forcing a nine-year-old rape victim to give birth, and the general misogyny — they go and do something like this and totally redeem themselves.
And by “redeem” I mean that they show their true colors once again, and carve out a special place for themselves in Hell.
Because now they flat-out say that the so-called partial birth abortion ban is a good thing because it bans one of the safer later-term procedures — meaning that women who need later abortions will be more likely to face serious physical injuries that could kill them or make them sterile.
“The old procedure [standard D&E], which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.”
Well. To quote Marty Lederman:
Got that? The Court upheld the law because the remaining unregulated procedure might be just as safe. Yet according to Focus on the Family, the remaining procedure is markedly less safe for the mother, and that’s precisely why the law is a good thing — because it leaves in place only a procedure that carries a higher risk of danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus . . . which in turn leads to “greater legal liability” for the doctors, and, as a result, fewer abortions.
Score one for candor.
It should be pointed out that the procedure which is still legal is very safe — safer than most surgical procedures, and a hell of a lot safer than illegal abortion. So we shouldn’t get ourselves into a panic over the idea that this procedure is unsafe, because that simply isn’t true. What is true is that the banned procedure, wherein the fetus was removed in tact, was the safer procedure for some pregnant women, given their physical condition. It’s abhorrent that “pro-life” groups and the Supreme Court took that option away. This will make abortion more dangerous for some women. But we should keep in mind that “more dangerous” is a relative term, and there’s no reason to be under the impression that terminating a pregnancy is now a significantly risky endeavor.
That aside, it is incredibly telling that anti-choicers are excited about the prospects of women having their uteruses perforated just so doctors can be sued out of terminating pregnancies and the “pro-life” crowd can score some political points (hey, if shooting them didn’t work, perhaps suing them into oblivion will).
And that’s not all:
A Focus on the Family spokesman said that Dobson would not comment. But the organization’s vice president, Tom Minnery, said that Dobson rejoiced over the ruling “because we, and most pro-lifers, are sophisticated enough to know we’re not going to win a total victory all at once. We’re going to win piece by piece.”
The fact that they’re trying to dismantle abortion rights piece by piece isn’t exactly news, but they often try to play to the moderates by claiming that they’re only pushing “reasonable restrictions” on abortion, not trying to totally take away your basic rights. Well, here’s the admission that that’s a huge lie. They are trying to totally dismantle abortion rights. And they aren’t going to stop there. To all the ladies who think that you’d never have an abortion but still kinda like your birth control: You’re next on the list. Because this isn’t about saving babies or any of that — it’s about gaining power and controlling women.
And since we were talking about “convenience” yesterday — how selfish sluts kill their babies because it’s the convenient thing to do and whatnot — I’ll include the full I-want-to-see-women-injured quote from a Focus on the Family rep:
Doctors adopted the late-term procedure “out of convenience,” Minnery added. “The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.”
Selfish asshole doctors, choosing a “convenient” procedure — clearly, they should take some responsibility, man up, and pick the procedure that is most likely to do harm to their patients. Because that’s the pro-life way.
Kinda puts the whole “women have abortions for convenience” argument into perspective.
Welcome to the culture of life.
Similar Posts (automatically generated):
- I guess women’s lives aren’t included in that whole “pro-life” thing by Jill October 13, 2007
- Pro-Life Group: “It is shameful that Christians would rally around the physical needs of the poor” by Jill June 5, 2007
- Bill Cunningham: Democrats Think “a Woman’s Womb is a Tomb” by Cara February 5, 2009
- More Anti-Choice Terrorism by Jill December 10, 2007
- Kenyan hospitals overwhelmed by women injured by illegal abortion. Thank a “pro-lifer.” by Jill April 22, 2007