It’s interesting – a nice word for astonishingly hypocritical – that many of the same folks who want to put restrictions on the Second Amendment right to bear arms won’t consider reasonable limits on abortion.
Which, unlike the right to bear arms, doesn’t happen to be in the Constitution.
It’s also amusing to see how the national media report on both. CBS News talked about proposed new restrictions on gun ownership as being “reforms.” An Associated Press story on abortion laws in Arkansas and North Dakota called them “the nation’s toughest bans on abortion.”
One supposes it’s a “ban” when you’re against it, and a “reform” when you’re for it.
Then again, we thought news stories were just supposed to report the facts, not advocate for or against.
The media go all out to portray – to borrow anti-gun verbiage, let’s call them abortion “reforms” – as being extreme. And perhaps the two states’ laws will hit judges that way: Arkansas’ bans abortion after 12 weeks, North Dakota’s after about six, when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.
But what’s more “extreme”? Those two measures, intended to save the lives of children in the womb? Or these two cases:
• Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist in Philadelphia, was put on trial for the death of a female patient and the killings of seven babies that prosecutors say had been born alive – and who were then killed with scissors.
• As one report put it, Florida lawmakers “were shocked during a committee hearing” recently when a Planned Parenthood lobbyist argued that it’s legal for babies born alive in botched abortions to be killed on the spot.
“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” the lobbyist said. “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
Mind you, the lobbyist is talking about killing a live baby that has been completely delivered.
Historians normally label that “infanticide.”
But by all means, it’s the pro-life advocates who are extreme, right?