Posted on January 18, 2018
Lamb’s Lame Excuses
PA pol fails to justify abortion
Pro-life Republicans have good reason to be apprehensive about March’s special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district. The man who vacated that seat, disgraced GOP Rep. Tim Murphy, proved to be so phony on the abortion issue that he privately disavowed his own position, and even encouraged his mistress to abort when he thought she’d been carrying his child. There’s no reason, however, for Keystone State conservatives to question the sincerity of their party’s nominee, Rick Saccone. It’s the opposing candidate, Democrat Conor Lamb, who is being openly hypocritical.
According to a report by John Delano, political analyst for KDKA news in Pittsburgh, both candidates claim that they are personally opposed to abortion. The difference is that Lamb says abortion on demand should remain legal, and is silent on taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood. Declaring personal opposition to abortion makes a flimsy cover for a pro-abortion politician, as it has ever since Jimmy Carter invented the tactic back in the 70s.
Saccone opposes abortion because he knows it’s the killing of an already existing human being. If it were practically anything else, there would be no issue. Lamb, by contrast, cannot explain why his personal disapproval of abortion does not lead him to demand that it be banned, nor will the liberal media ask him. If they did, his answer would be even worse than the ones he’s given so far. Years ago, The Weekly Standard asked “personally opposed, but” politicians exactly what it was about abortion they personally opposed that did not require it to be illegal, and received exactly no comprehensible answers. The response from then-senator Arlen Specter itself consisted of approximately three paragraphs poured out of a blender.
Lamb says, “A woman’s right to choose [abortion] has been the law of the land for 45 years now, and I think it should stay that way.” Well, where’s the personal opposition in that? Is legal abortion okay just because it’s “the law of the land”? Abortion apologists have been using this dodge for decades, but who accepts things he knows are wrong just because they’re currently legal? In a republic, the representatives of the people create the laws and have the power to change them. For someone aspiring to become a federal legislator, passively accepting something because it’s “the law of the land” is a poor excuse – especially when the “law” in question was unconstitutionally created by the judiciary, and not the legislature.
Perhaps understanding the inherent weakness in that argument, Lamb piles on with the assertion that “I’m also an American, and I believe very firmly in the separation of church and state.” Gosh, what a bold, patriotic stand. Too bad it’s based on a bunch of erroneous liberal mindbarf. There’s nothing in the Establishment Clause that means there mustn’t be a law against dismembering and killing unborn children, just because certain religions frown upon it. Religion also informs us that it’s wrong to steal. Does that mean Lamb thinks there should be no laws against theft?
No, abortion alone benefits from the presumption that it must be allowed precisely because it violates somebody’s moral code. That’s not a serious argument, but only a rhetorical hiding place. If there were no religions opposed to abortion, Lamb would latch onto some other excuse to defend the indefensible practice all the same.
Pro-abortion politicians demonstrate their knowledge that they’re wrong when they ask to be given credit for feeling conflicted. In 1984, the media praised vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro for her depth and thoughtfulness when she said, “It’s an issue I’ve made my peace with,” but who talks like that? Sarah Palin never had to make her peace with the abortion issue. She simply took the side she believed was right.
Another veep candidate, Joe Lieberman, explained his senate vote in defense of partial-birth abortion by warbling, “I wrestled with my conscience.” More like he bashed it into submission with a chair while the referee wasn’t looking. As long as he’d separated himself from his conscience, why fight fair?
Ferraro and Lieberman went so far as to portray themselves as the victims of the abortion issue, while lauding themselves for overcoming it. In the context of tens of millions of children being killed in some of the most grisly ways imaginable, what really matters, as they present it, is whether or not a self-important politician has attained closure.
When it comes to offering weenie excuses for taking a position he knows perfectly well is wrong, Conor Lamb is a rank amateur.
The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press