Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will vote on a bill codifying the legality of abortion so that voters, he argues, can “see where every senator is.” Although Schumer believes this is a political dunk for Democrats, it represents a magnificent opportunity for Republicans to back up their thesis.
While many conservatives have rightly avoided celebrating Judge Samuel Alito’s draft decision prematurely, many also seem frightened to discuss the underlying issue. Indeed, the draft escape is a significant assault on the system, but no more so than Roe v. Veal. For 50 years, our culture and the media have treated this imperfect decision as right and ritual.
Surely, most of the public is unaware of the maximalist stance advocated by the left establishment. Republicans should take this opportunity to point out that, even if they were moderately in favor of the choice, they could not support Schumer’s barbaric bill, which legalizes abortion for any reason on request up to the time of birth. They should follow up on this by noting that Democrats, including the president, want taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions, including the term type.
Passing Schumer’s bill would likely result in the dismemberment of thousands of viable children for nothing more than convenience. (Well, thousands more than the roughly 10,000 already killed each year in late abortions.) A debate on the ground would be a good time to point out that there is no bill preventing doctors from saving a mother’s life.
Indeed, the medical literature shows that third-trimester abortions are performed very rarely due to “maternal health complications or fatal fetal abnormalities discovered late in pregnancy,” as reported by the anti-abortion institute Charlotte Lozier. The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute found that most women seeking full-term abortions “do not do so for reasons of fetal abnormality or life-threatening”.
Republicans could ask their Democratic colleagues what, if any, abortion restrictions they believe should be put in place. When Fox News’ Bret Baier insisted on former pro-lifer Tim Ryan, now Democratic candidate for Ohio senator (and who is often described as moderated by the media), that he believed in some limitation to abortion, he replied. : “You got to leave it to the woman.”
Why does Congressman Ryan believe that it is up to the woman to decide whether a human being lives or dies one minute before the coronation but not one minute after? I’m sure I’m not the only person interested in why Democrats believe it is “reproductive justice” to get rid of babies like Lyla Stensrud, born at 21 weeks and four days and weighing only 14.4 ounces.
A courtroom debate would be a good time to remind everyone that, in 2019, Senate Democrats blocked Republican Ben Sasse’s effort to gain unanimous consensus on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill that didn’t cover technically abortion but the protection of the children who survived the surgical procedure.
And when Democrats merge their rhetoric of racial grievance with their arguments about “bodily autonomy”, someone should ask them, “Why do you think it is right for abortion factories to target minority communities? Do you share Margaret Sanger’s racist stance on black children? Do you agree with sex-selective abortions? If not, why not? Do you agree with abortionists who eradicate people with non-life-threatening fetal abnormalities such as Down syndrome for the convenience of clients? eugenics?”
A debate in the courtroom would be a good opportunity to point out the widespread lies about “forced abortions”, extrauterine pregnancy and the prohibition of contraception, and also to remind voters that Democrats want to deprive health workers of the rights of conscience and force them to participate. to abortions.
Of course, I’m not naive. Most abortion advocates will not respond and the media will not ask. When does life begin? Maybe a Democrat will finally have an answer. Or perhaps the issue will remain above their “wage scale,” as former President Barack Obama, who spearheaded abortion radicalization, once said. As things stand, the left’s position is that only the mother (no longer referred to as “giving birth” or “breastfeeding”) can answer such questions.
This is not simply unscientific; it is morally indefensible. This is why abortion activists have been forced to use a variety of euphemisms – “bodily autonomy” and “reproductive rights” – to avoid describing the unpleasant realities and consequences of the deadly surgical procedure they advocate.
But now that the Supreme Court could overthrow Roe, Democrats can no longer silence the debate by arguing that abortion is indisputably a constitutional right. They should be forced to make arguments, perhaps not in the Azzurri states, but on the national stage. So far, they seem wholly unprepared for that debate, which makes Republicans’ tepid response to Roe’s possible demise all the more inexplicable.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be constructed to represent the views of the Heritage Foundation.
Do you have an opinion on this article? To ring out, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we will consider posting the edited comments in our normal “Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or title of the article plus your name and city and / or state.