Posted on July 20, 2014
Abortion does not equal health
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D, Conn.) has introduced a bill called the Women’s Health Protection Act, although if you read any farther than the title, which he’d rather you didn’t, you’d find that it and practically everything that follows is a lie.
The purpose of the bill is to nullify state laws that were passed in reaction to the crimes of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, which imposed previously nonexistent health and safety standards on abortion clinics. If you’re wondering how the repeal of those standards would serve to protect women’s health, it wouldn’t. Abortion and women’s health are mutually exclusive categories. To protect abortion, as this bill would do, does not protect women’s health any more than it protects the health of their unborn children.
Liberals see “women” as a homogeneous collective whose only purpose is to serve the Democrat political agenda. That’s the only way they can convince themselves that they’re protecting women by promoting abortion. If it’s good for the party, it must be good for “women,” and if countless individual women must be harmed for the sake of the collective, then so be it.
Employing the trusty legal-and-therefore-safe canard, Blumenthal’s proposal states, “Legal abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the United States.” How must one measure safeness in order to reach that conclusion? A safe procedure is one that reduces or eliminates a physical threat to the patient. When a woman has an elective abortion, she creates a danger to herself that had not previously existed. How safe is that?
An abortionist doesn’t have to be a serial criminal like Gosnell in order to be a danger to women. The fact of the matter is that dedicated, talented, ethical doctors do not become abortionists. One of the ways in which this is evident is that abortion advocates want to force medical students to be trained in abortion, because so few of them will subject themselves to it voluntarily. They want to be schooled in the healing arts, after all, not in dismembering and killing the most innocent members of the human race.
Even the supposedly mainstream elements of the abortion industry are anything but protectors of women’s health. For years, Planned Parenthood instructed women to take misoprostol (one of the two drugs that make up RU-486) by inserting it directly into the birth canal. Had they cared a whit about women’s health, they’d have heeded the FDA guidelines stating that misoprostol is only to be administered orally. (That means the pills go in her mouth, you callous quacks!)
In keeping with the typical evasiveness of the pro-abortion movement, the bill repeatedly refers to something called “abortion services,” as if those were ancillary procedures that are a degree of separation from abortion itself. People don’t refer to legitimate medical procedures this way. If you had your appendix out, you would say you had an appendectomy, not “appendectomy services.”
Abortion advocates recognize that there’s something uniquely terrible about the act that requires them to construct a whole new lexicon to conceal it. Yet the Democrat bill would prohibit any state restrictions or requirements that did not also apply to “medically comparable procedures.” We need to have highly publicized congressional hearings on this matter alone. Perhaps the people who have had these medically comparable procedures can appear as witnesses to explain what those procedures are, and what makes them comparable to abortion.
The aim of an abortion is to produce a tiny human corpse. There’s no real medical procedure about which anything comparable may be said. In any medical procedure, the desired outcome is that all parties involved come out alive. When that is the result of an abortion attempt, it is said to have been “botched.”
Referring to abortion and “medically comparable procedures” is like referring to “turpentine and other beverages.” Nobody who thinks about it will believe the first item belongs with the others, but if you simply state as a given that it does, who knows? You just might fool somebody.
The intention of the bill is not that it pass, of course, but only that it further the “Republican War on Women” theme through the defeat of so-called “women’s health protection.” In reality, it's the Democrats who are waging a war on unborn children, with women as collateral damage. Does that sound equally overblown? Well, if we’re going to argue about which side is waging a war on the innocent, the question of whether the alleged aggressors are actually killing people ought to be considered relevant.
The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press