South Dakota is once again making national headlines with our efforts to protect human life at all stages of development, as evidenced by coverage from the Washington Post.
They include these lame protests from the ironically named pro-abortion group that fought the last attempt to protect human life:
The Campaign for Healthy Families, formed by Planned Parenthood and other groups to fight the 2006 initiative, said the new proposal is still too restrictive.
A woman would have to report rape or incest to police before seeking an abortion to qualify for that exception. "A woman who is the victim of incest and is 13, being raped by her father, is highly unlikely to report that," said Sarah Stoesz, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota.
Opponents also said the definition of a health risk to the woman is too narrow because the language implies a doctor would have to be certain the woman's health was threatened and excludes mental and emotional issues as health exceptions.
Would the Unhealthy Families bunch rather this girl--who is likely being subjected to repetitive incest at age 13--continue to suffer in silence? Perhaps they think it's better that the molester be able to get an abortionist help him hide the evidence of his despicable crime?
A health exception isn't good enough for them, either...if it actually requires there be proof of a valid health issue that only an abortion can solve. Is medical certification of this medical necessity too much to ask when we're taking an unborn human life?
The truth is quickly becoming clear.
Two years ago, the pro-aborts could hide behind the excuse that "we need exceptions" as they worked against human life.
Now, they no longer have that to hide behind--there are exceptions for rape, incest, the mother's health and the mother's life in this proposed law. But as we figured, even these exceptions aren't good enough.
Nothing will be good enough for the pro-abortionists short of unrestricted abortion for any reason. That makes abortion a form of retroactive birth control. Something that even most lukewarm Americans find disgusting.
2 comments:
If the pro-abortionists are really concerned about the safety and health of women, then a medical certification prior to any abortion should be supported by them fully. An abortion is a medical procedure that can be dangerous to the pregnant woman and centainly fatal to the child. Most insurance companies would require a dangerous medical procedure to be authorized by a regular physician and a referal given for the medical procedure to follow. It is a matter of safety. The medical atmospere at the "clinics" seem sloppy and have little on no oversight. A woman entering such a place with a previous medical condition would very likely be in danger. It only makes sense that there should be some sort of rules in place to prevent malpractice and injury to their patients.
The issue of minors seeking dangerous medical care without parental consent is also a no-brainer. Of course they should need parental consent. A teenager can't even go see a dentist without parental consent. How about tattoos, school sports, or immunizations? Anything that could possibly threaten the physical well being of a child has always required signatures, releases, etc.
The issue of medical safety should supercede any political views and is reason enough to support new laws to correct this situation.
-dave
We hear a lot of Pro-abortionists saying they do not want their taxes supporting this. What about the millions of pro-life taxes going to Abortion Centers. If you think your pro choice taxes are too much to support this then Pro-life supporters should have a right to complain about their taxes going to support abortion centers, and I will bet if a law was made to stop pro-life taxes going to abortion centers the pro choice crowd would claim pro-life status just to get a tax break! This would help shut down the evil family planning centers even more. I can hear them screaming now!!!!!! "
Post a Comment