Jewish World Review Nov. 23, 2004 / 10 Kislev, 5765
'Pro-choicers' condemn congress for expanding choice
Liberals are having conniption fits because President Bush is approaching his second term as if he were actually elected. But conservatives in Congress may be growing bolder, too, if the just-passed spending bill is any indication.
I'm not just referring to their omnibus appropriations bill in which they capped the growth in domestic spending for 2005 at one percent, though that's encouraging. I'm talking about the specific provision that conservatives inserted in it that bars federal, state or local agencies from using financial coercion to pressure health care providers to perform abortion services or referrals.
Can you believe such a bill could ever be necessary in this country? How could we have arrived at the point where the federal government's policy is to treat the killing of innocent babies in the womb as a de facto government entitlement?
Well, you better believe it, because we have arrived at precisely that point. The Washington Post reports that opponents of the provision described it "as part of a broad strategy by Republican social conservatives to 'chip away' at abortion rights."
Indeed, certain Democratic leaders are outraged by the Republicans' audacious maneuver. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi grumbled, "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but Republicans are gutting it step by step." Senator Diane Feinstein called the provision a "terrible, egregious abuse of power."
Let's consider some of these complaints. Have you noticed the recurring modus operandi of liberal activists these days of trying to radically change the status quo and then painting those fighting to retain it as the agitators?
Just as homosexual activists characterize proponents of preserving the age-old institution of traditional marriage as enemies of their civil rights, these liberal pro-aborts are saying, in effect, that unless the government proactively encourages the practice of abortion, it is "gutting" or "chipping away" at abortion rights.
For Nancy Pelosi's information, Roe v. Wade had to do with the right of states to regulate abortion. It had nothing to do with forcing health care providers to perform abortions.
It's bad enough that the courts have, essentially, created a federal constitutional right to abortion in certain categories of cases for those who freely choose to engage in the procedure. But it's even worse for the government to force unwilling health care providers against their will, and oftentimes against their consciences, to engage in the abominable practice.
Besides, I thought the pro-aborts insisted on being referred to as pro-choice. But how can they maintain a shred of intellectual honesty in this matter when they want to force unwilling institutions to provide abortions? Keep in mind that for the most part we're not talking about health issues here, but elective abortions.
These same people who steadfastly claim they are merely pro-choice -- as if they are neutral on the issue -- are the ones who vigorously back institutions and groups that seem to discourage mothers from having their babies.
If these groups and their likeminded advocates and servants in government were for promoting choice, they would inform women of the statistical correlation between abortion and breast cancer and the likelihood that pregnant women who have abortions will suffer emotional or psychological damage as a result.
"That's ridiculous," you say. "No one would want to encourage undecided pregnant women to have an abortion."
I agree that it's ridiculous, but nonetheless true. Some radical feminists encourage abortion, as opposed to "choice," because they view abortion as a sacrament -- a paranoid symbol of their collective political power, as if the repeal of woman suffrage is right around the corner. They obviously believe that a substantial reduction in abortions would result in a diminution in their power.
That's why they don't warn women of the potential health risks associated with abortion and that's why they are willing to use the coercive power of government to force unwilling providers to perform abortions. If they were pro-choice, they would allow health care providers to make their own choices.
These pro-aborts are also usually people who most loudly profess their belief in a pure separation of church and state, presumably because they don't want the state forcing its values down its citizens' throats. Yet they have no hesitation in using the government to force this "value" down our throats.
Liberal bullies like Senator Feinstein call measures to curtail their egregious abuses of power as egregious abuses of power. But as usual, they have it completely backward.
If the expected bill to repeal this provision comes before Congress for a vote, Republicans must stick to their guns and slam it down with a decisive majority.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington
and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
David Limbaugh, a columnist and attorney practicing in Cape
Girardeau, Mo., is the author of, most recently, "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity". (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.) Comment by clicking here.
© 2004, CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.