Posted on January 30, 2019



New York’s Nobodies

“Not Me” pro-aborts strike again


Daniel Clark



We’re often told, by people one might assume are authorities on the subject, that “nobody is pro-abortion.”  Got that?  Nobody!  Oh, there may be people who are in favor of “choice,” or “reproductive freedom,” or some other benign ethereal concept to which the physical dismemberment and killing of tiny human children is incidental, but “pro-abortion”?  Nah.

Mind you, that makes the more than 60 million legal abortions that have been done in our country a little hard to explain.  How can it be possible that nobody is “pro” them?  Is that ghostly “Not Me” character from The Family Circus responsible for them all?  If so, there must be more than one of him.  Our federal courts and state legislatures must be teeming with Not Mes, setting the legal groundwork for all those other Not Mes who actually perform the procedure.

In spite of nobody being pro-abortion, New York has passed a law to keep abortion legal in that state in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned.  Gov. Andrew Cuomo celebrated his signing the bill by having pink lights turned on at the World Trade Center and other landmarks around the state.  Not that he was celebrating abortion or anything.  He’s just another well-meaning champion of women’s reproductive healthy-choicey-body-thingey rights.

One thing’s for sure.  Nobody is in favor of abortion post-viability.  That’s why the New York law allows abortions through 24 weeks, even though preemies have been born earlier than that and survived.  Still, we can rest assured that nobody is for third-trimester abortions.  Okay, so Cuomo’s law even allows abortions beyond 24 weeks, right up to birth, but his doing this is just mimicking Roe’s provision, legalizing such abortions only to protect a woman’s life or health.

In truth, no viable baby ever needs to be killed to preserve its mother’s life.  Even if continuing the pregnancy would be problematic, there’s no need to kill the baby before extracting it from the womb.  Whether that it is necessary for the mother’s health is a different question, at least as the courts understand that word.  On the same day the Supreme Court decided Roe, it also handed down the Doe v. Bolton decision, in which it defined “health” in the context of abortion as encompassing “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient.”  That basically legalizes abortion as long as the mother thinks she would feel better about having a dead baby than a live one.

The first time Bill Clinton vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, he introduced five women whose third-trimester abortions were supposedly necessary to preserve their health.  It turned out that in every case, the “health” concern was possible fetal abnormalities, and not anything that had been a physical threat to the woman.  One must consider, however, that giving birth to a disabled child could prove injurious to one’s emotional health.  This must be what defenders of the procedure meant during congressional hearings, when their most tiresome talking point was “these are not perfect Gerber babies,” unsubtly suggesting that they should die for that reason.  Not that anybody’s for that kind of thing.

Absolutely nobody is in favor of killing babies once they’re born, so the fact that New York has repealed its protections for children who have survived abortion attempts must be due to the recognition that it’s no longer necessary, since the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act was signed by George W. Bush in 2002.  After all, if there’s anything a bunch of cosmopolitan, liberal Democrats can’t stand, it’s an unnecessary, redundant law cluttering the place up.

Nobody, but nobody is for going back to the days of the “back-alley butchers.”  There must be a reasonable explanation, then, why New York has dropped its requirement that abortions be performed by licensed physicians, but instead is now letting them be done by physician’s assistants, nurse practitioners and midwives.  It can’t simply be that the legislators of that state want more abortions, and are frustrated by the shortage of licensed doctors willing to do them, because we all know that nobody wants more abortions.

Come to think of it, nobody wants anything that’s in New York’s new abortion law.  How peculiar, then, that the state legislature should have passed it, and Gov. Cuomo signed it, let alone that they find it a cause for celebration.

While they were at it, they might as well have passed another law, officially changing their state motto to “Oops.”



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar