In case you missed it, the Senate voted Monday against a bill that would have ended abortions after 20 weeks across the United States.
Of course, this was the expected outcome. Leadership’s point in bringing it up wasn’t to get it to the floor; rather, it was to get pro-abortion politicians on record, both in their statements and their votes, with the hope of driving the conversation towards future passage.
And rather than a substantive debate about the legislation, the bill’s opposition came prepared with a list of talking points that sounded like they were drafted by communications interns at one of the big abortion lobbying operations.
Let’s just go through some of the more salient ones.
This bill is dangerous and will put women in danger.
This argument was put forward by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who called the measure “dangerous and cruel.” It outright ignores the fact that there’s an exemption to protect the life of the mother.
It also handily glosses over the fact that many of the countries that the Left would have us model our whole health care system after have far more stringent restrictions on abortion, as well as the fact that late-term abortions are statistically far more dangerous for women than those done before the point where children are believed to feel the pain of the procedure.
This bill is part of a larger plot to control women’s bodies.
This is one of the oldest, most common arguments used to distract from the substance of the issue and cast aspersion on pro-lifers. It was articulated this time by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
But, in order to believe that the push for pro-life policies is just a grand scheme by old, sanctimonious, conservative men to keep women under control, you would have to believe the overwhelming number of women who support pro-life policies, the women who co-sponsor them in Congress, and the female attendees at the annual March for Life have all been duped into carrying water for an arcanely operated, decades-long trans-ideological plot against them.
Now, a conspiracy theory of this gravity and scope isn’t quite at the level of lizard people or that of the 9/11 “truthers,” but it’s at least in the same ballpark.
The bill would be unconstitutional.
That’s how Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., put it.
This is a shallow reading of the “right” to an abortion manufactured by the Supreme Court out of whole cloth in 1973. “Viability” of the fetus is a key barometer in determining the legality of an abortion procedure under that ruling, and advances in medical science continually push that line earlier in pregnancy, as in the case of young Micah Pickering, the bill’s namesake, who was born extremely premature.
But it’s also a shallow reading of the law that says just because a legal question has been addressed by the Supreme Court, the moral question need not be asked again. Thank goodness that this attitude didn’t prevail in the wake of the Dred Scott decision. That brings us to the final issue here.
None of these silly, shopworn arguments ever address what’s really at the base of the whole debate, at least for the proponents of the bill: That there are unborn human lives in the balance, human lives that are indeed very human when they can be legally aborted.
When one takes a look at the information presented to pregnant mothers who want to have their children, one sees that the 20-week point of gestation is indeed an incredible time for the parents.
According to the Baby Center, a one-stop shop for information on pregnancy, at 20 weeks:
This is what an 18-week-old unborn child looks like, two weeks before the proposed cutoff date:
— C. C. Pecknold (@ccpecknold) January 24, 2018
All the ad hominem attacks on character, all the breathless references to dystopian feminist fiction, and all the red herrings in the world do not address the level of humanity that already exists in the womb at just five months’ time, and they definitely do not address why the United States is among the most barbaric in how we choose to address that humanity.