In an article in this morning’s Washington Post entitled
“Will Kermit Gosnell change the abortion debate?”
, author Juliet Eilperin captures the Left’s position with pellucid clarity. She writes:
“Can the allegedly egregious acts of one provider shift the broader abortion debate?”
That Dr. Gosnell is an abortionist has been established by his license from the State of Pennsylvania. That he performed late-term abortions was advertised by the doctor. The results of those abortions have been entered into evidence and are unquestionable.
That Ms. Eilperin uses the terms “alleged” and “egregious” is clearly indicative of her perspective regardless of the Post’s style manual. They are a semantic smoking gun.
This is the position of the Left and of this Administration specifically. Late term abortion is perfectly legal to this faction. 10 days ago in Florida, a representative of Planned Parenthood endorsed post delivery abortion or as most of us call it, murder.
This is the logical extension of the eugenics policies advocated by Margaret Sanger when she founded Planned Parenthood in 1916. Eugenics, the policy of selective breeding and culling of human beings to establish a superior genetic stock was the policy of Adolph Hitler as well, if you recall.
Sanger and her allies, who included Theodore Roosevelt, wanted to eliminate defective traits and populations and specially targeted African-Americans. Abortion rights are part and parcel of the Progressive agenda, and that includes Ms. Eilperin, the President of the United States, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services.
You see, the President’s has been very clear on his support for late-term abortion. He was interviewed in 2003. And in 2007
“Obama sharply criticized the Supreme Court for its 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He said, “I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling…I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.”
Kathleen Sebelius, a nominal Catholic, invested her tenure as the Governor of Kansas into the support of late-term abortion. Jack Cashill in The American Thinker connects the dots in the web of corruption and Leftist maneuvering in Kansas in the abortion debate centered around Dr. George Tiller, another late-term abortionist. The story was never reported in the national media. Sebelius led a coordinated campaign for six years to fight for Tiller’s right to abort late term fetuses.
In November of 2012 Human Events magazine reported that the wife of Attorney General Eric Holder, OB/GYN Dr. Sharon Malone Holder and her sister own, through a family trust the building in Georgia housing the offices of controversial abortionist Dr. Tyrone Cecil Malloy. AG Holder’s Department of Justice has been aggressive in targeting anti-abortion groups, not so much the potential violations of abortion laws on the books. There is a clear conflict of interest.
So we have the President, his HHS Secretary, and the Attorney General all far to the left of the American People on reproductive rights. We have spokespeople for Planned Parenthood acknowledging their support for post natal abortion.
And then we have Ms. Eilperin concerned that the abortion debate is turning against late-term abortion definitively, arguing that abortion clinics are overburdened with rules and regulations as it stands. She points out that the National Abortion Rights League (NARAL) has given an “F” to Pennsylvania for the states restrictive abortion policies. She argues that emotion is overcoming reason. But is it?
Is it reasonable to take the life of a viable human being simply for the fact of its existence? Go down to any hospital with a maternity ward and look at the section for premature infants. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent per case to keep these infants alive. How does this dichotomy reconcile itself in any humane society? When does a fetus or in the case of late-term or post delivery cases have its own human rights? Our policies are schizophrenic.
And the Strangelovian rhetoric of the Left must be recognized for what it is. In the newspeak of the Left calls it reproductive rights. Except the product has no rights. Even until the final stages of pregnancy and beyond, if they had their way.
I cannot and would not post the photographs of the souls lost to Dr. Gosnell’s snips, but they are little different from those of healthy, living infants.
Scientifically, life begins at conception. Our society has decided that a life may be terminated prior to birth. Those limits have been legally established and yet the abortion rights movement wants no restrictions whatsoever. How is this just? And how do we reconcile having some of the strongest advocates for those extreme positions writing the rules and regulations and then enforcing, or not enforcing them?