In praise of life

Texas court decision should be hailed by pro-choice crowd

An Associated Press story in The Chronicle recently quoted two different critics of a federal court of appeals ruling upholding the Texas abortion law. The story offered no quotes of praise from the decision’s many backers.

OK. We’ll do it.

We’ll start with the two words that ought to – but won’t – unify pro-choice and pro-life advocates: Kermit Gosnell.

If you’ve never heard that name, there’s a good reason: Although he’s arguably the Josef Mengele of the abortion industry – and his name, face and criminal case should be a cause célèbre in the effort to keep women and children safe – the left-wing media and their adherents bizarrely want his case swept under a bloody rug.

In a Philadelphia office that was more akin to a slaughterhouse than a “clinic,” Gosnell was charged with eight counts of murder for the deaths of one patient and seven babies born alive that his clinic then killed. He also performed untold illegal late-term abortions in his filthy, Godforsaken butcher’s office. He is serving life in prison.

Can you say infanticide?

Yet the radical, abortion-at-any-cost crowd – which the media do their best to portray as mainstream – want you to think that abortion is over-regulated.

It’s largely the same crowd that wants to regulate guns out of existence. Now, think about that: They want to regulate guns, the right to which is enshrined explicitly in the Constitution, but they fight tooth-and-nail against any restrictions on abortion, which is not.

You would think supposed women’s advocates would be the first to try to save women from a butcher’s knife. Isn’t the likes of Gosnell the very coat hanger that pro-choicers like to hold over our heads?

It gets worse.

A judge in Texas actually had ruled earlier that the Texas law requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges – as well as placing limits on the prescription of abortion-inducing pills – served no medical purpose.

Really? Making sure that an abortionist could admit a patient to a hospital has no medical purpose? That’s just intellectual fiction, dressed neatly in a black robe. What a crock.

Pro-abortion zealots argue the Texas law is aimed at reducing the number of abortions. Well, duh! Absolutely! Abortion foes need not apologize for standing between a baby and a blade.

Fact is, pro-choicers – if they could drop their dogmatic, unquestioning, 24/7 devotion to abortion – should join the rest of us in finding ways to reduce the number of abortions in this country, while making them safer. It should be a common goal. It is, after all, the left’s desire to be called “pro-choice” and not “pro-abortion.” Right? If you’re not actually for abortions, then what the heck is wrong with trying to limit them and the damage they do to both children and women?

In a rare cogent media moment, ABC-TV’s Terry Moran managed to conclude that Kermit Gosnell was “probably the most successful serial killer in the history of the world.”

And yet, his name is hardly ever spoken? And such people need no regulations?

There’s no question under the sun that setting higher standards for abortionists – such as requiring they have the gravitas to admit patients to a hospital – makes women safer and perhaps will even save lives.

It also might have prevented the Josef Mengele of abortion from bloodying so many.

More

Sun, 12/04/2016 - 22:47

AP’s bias persists

Sun, 12/04/2016 - 18:09

Now the watchdogs bark