GOP Wants to ‘Let Women Die on the Floor’?
MSNBC’s Martin Bashir hooked up with “pro-abortion Rep. Diana DeGette to bash pro-life conservatives as ‘misogynists [women haters]’, during a seven-and-a-half minute long segment. Bashir claimed that it’s ‘hardly surprising’ that the proposed Protect Life Act, which would protect the conscience rights of health care workers, ‘has earned the moniker the “let women die act.”’” Here are some of Bashir’s insane comments: “What are they focusing on in the Congress today? . . . yet another bill that takes dead aim at a woman’s right to choose.” The right to choose what? Bashir never says. He can’t. Abortion kills a pre-born baby every time, 4000 pre-born child deaths a day in the United States, 1.5 million pre-born child deaths a year. Who’s really dying here?
Former House Speaker and now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that of the government does not pay for abortion, women will “die on the floor.” She and Bashir are talking about a bill that protects taxpayers from having to subsidize abortions through Obamacare.
Last evening, my wife and I attended a pro-life banquet to support the work of the North Georgia Pregnancy Center. I wish you could have heard the speakers. One mother of seven daughters told how her mother had been encouraged to abort her. Obviously, she didn’t. Mr. Bashir and his pro-abortion cronies can’t attend events like this. It would destroy the straw men that he and his fellow abortionists use to promote their bloody business.
Marc T. Newman was the featured speaker. During his talk, Dr. Newman quoted from a Planned Parenthood advertisement published in 1964 to promote birth control. Here’s one of the questions and answers:
Is [birth control] an abortion?
Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.
Planned Parenthood, nine years before the Roe v. Wade pro-abortion decision, described abortion as killing “the life of a baby after it has begun,” that is, after conception. This is the position of the pro-life, anti-abortion movement today.
The Supreme Court claimed to have researched historical opinions on abortion. How did it miss this? There’s another statement on abortion that the Supreme Court and Mr. Bashir also missed. It’s from an editorial in the 1970 issue of California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association:
The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status, abortion is becoming acceptable by society as moral, right, and even necessary. . . . [S]ince the old ethic has not been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.1
Dr. Newman briefly made reference to a statement made by Camille Paglia in Salon’s on-line magazine, a self-described “atheist and libertarian”:
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.
Even so, she “believe[s] that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body,” even if it means murdering a preborn baby. Astounding! But she’s an atheist, so why does it matter what anybody does to anybody, whether it’s your own body or not?
Mr. Bashir, like all his rowdy abortion friends, can’t stand the facts. That’s why they can only interview talking-heads who parrot the same pro-abortion line with no competition from the pro-life side. Their ideological chickens, media bullies.
- California Medicine (1970), 113:3 reprinted in The Human Life Review, 1:1 (1975), 103–104. [↩]