Religion of Molech Defends Late-Term Baby-Killing

from Stand Firm by David Fischler 

The priests of Molech from the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice have weighed in on a proposal that would ban abortion in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks. The proposal, a response to the Kermit Gosnell horror show, would evidently take us back to the bad old days before Kermit G. could do his thang:

We, the undersigned national religious groups, urge you to oppose H.R.1797, the “District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” sponsored by Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), which would create a nationwide ban on access to abortion care 20 weeks after fertilization, with no exceptions in cases of rape, incest or fetal anomalies. It explicitly bans later abortion care for a woman whose mental health would threaten her life or her health. We stand united across our faith traditions in opposing this extreme legislation.

This letter will be immediately dismissed on Capitol Hill, since the authors evidently can’t read (there’s no evidence that anyone actually read even the first paragraph of their own letter). The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, you see, is only for…well, you can guess:

(a) Unlawful Conduct- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any legislation of theDistrict of Columbia under authority delegated by Congress, it shall be unlawful for any person to perform an abortion within the District of Columbia, or attempt to do so, unless in conformity with the requirements set forth in subsection (b).

Now, it may be that the signers of the letter (a “broad list of religious organizations,” most of which happen to also be members of the RCRC, the remainder of which are simply the usual suspects) think that the entire United States is encapsulated in the District of Columbia. Or it may be that they think that “District of Columbia” is simply another name for the “United States.” Or it may be that they think there is nothing outside of the District of Columbia that is part of the United States. One way or another, out here in the real world we realize that bills that specify that they are enacting law for the District of Columbia actually only encompass this small piece of land otherwise known as Washington, D.C.
As for their other claims, here is the relevant portion of the legislation:

(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the abortion shall not be performed or attempted, if the probable post-fertilization age, as determined under paragraph (1), of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater.
(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), subparagraph (A) does not apply if, in reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but not including psychological or emotional conditions.

It is true that there is no exception in this for rape or incest. The thinking, I’m certain, is that victims of those two crimes still have the option to have an abortion up to twenty weeks after the crime. That is ample time to have a pregnancy test, make a decision, and have the procedure done. As for fetal abnormalities, they are virtually all detectable before twenty weeks, again permitting time for a decision and action. As for the lack of mental health exceptions, those have always been nothing more than dodges to all abortionists to evade bans that would otherwise be applicable. Any woman can say, “if I have this baby, my life will be ruined,” or some such, at which point the doctor can claim, “mental health exception invoked–patient was clearly suicidal when I saw her.”
As stupid as the first paragraph is, the second is garden variety evil:

Proponents of this bill have cited the Kermit Gosnell case as a reason to push this intrusive policy, but the fact is that the lack of access to safe and affordable abortion care is precisely the circumstance that drove women to an unscrupulous person like Gosnell, as it did to so many women before Roe v. Wade.  The existence of his clinic is a ghastly warning sign of what happens when abortion is so restricted and expensive that a woman in need feels that she has nowhere else to turn.

My response is a variation on the famous Inigo Montoya line from The Princess Bride: “You keep using that argument. I do not think it means what you think it means.” This just apes NARAL and Planned Parenthood, which have said the same idiotic thing. First, there’s a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Philadelphia. Did their prices skyrocket during Gosnell’s reign of terror? Second, his operation was legal the entire time it was open, while the state of Pennsylvania winked at it and ignored complaints about it. Doesn’t sound like overly burdensome regulation was the problem. Third, how exactly would fewer regulations have kept Gosnell from doing his Mengele routine? This argument is not only demonstrably, factually incorrect, it is evil. It turns the truth completely on its head, and does so in the service of the killing of innocents. Old Joe Goebbels would be proud (and no, that’s not a violation of Godwin’s Law, that’s a statement of ethical reality).
Finally, we have the last refuge of a pro-abortion scoundrel–claiming that baby-killing is a religious liberty interest:

Like all Americans, Rep. Franks is free to have and share his own religious beliefs about issues related to pregnancy and parenting. Liberty is an American value. However, H.R.1797 is a clear attempt to impose one particular religious belief on the whole nation, and thus represents a gross violation of the freedom to which every American is entitled by the Constitution. The proper role of government in the United States is not to impose one set of religious views on everyone, but to protect each person’s right and ability to make decisions according to their own beliefs and values.

Yada, yada, yada. What do you want to bet that the IRS wouldn’t think of cramping these clowns’ style?