The Strange Assertions of Abortion Advocates

One aspect of the abortion debate with which one really must contend is the deception of those who advocate for abortion as a right, starting with the idea that legislation to preserve women's ability to kill their unborn children in the womb is about "reproductive health care."  Reproductive of what?

One aspect of the abortion debate with which one really must contend is the deception of those who advocate for abortion as a right, starting with the idea that legislation to preserve women’s ability to kill their unborn children in the womb is about “reproductive health care.”  Reproductive of what?

Please consider a voluntary, tax-deductible subscription to keep the Current growing and free.

So much of the pro-abortion argument requires distortion of the language and concepts that are involved.  Why that is should be obvious.  The other day, a progressive state senator from Providence, Gayle Goldin, and Providence Journal reporter Katnerine Gregg responded to news that a judge had struck down an Iowa law restricting abortion when the baby’s heartbeat can be detected, implying that it’s a concern because it may give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to address the question of abortion.

Think of the underlying issue.

This law that is, at the moment, arguably unconstitutional essentially states that if an unborn child is so provably unique from the mother as to have his or her own heartbeat, a doctor can’t suck out his or her brain, tear him or her limb from limb, or otherwise kill the child (presumably except to save the life of the mother).  When that’s the fact of the act, the only way to maintain support has got to be to misdirect attention some other way.

Activists at the Rhode Island State House, the other day, emphasized minorities’ access to abortion, but starting from a different perspective paints a very different picture.  Something around 8% of Rhode Island’s population is black, but they account for some 16% of abortions.  Abortion kills black babies at about twice the rate that it kills white babies in the Ocean State.

A chart from the Guttmacher Institute shows that minorities, especially black non-Hispanics, have much higher abortion rates than white non-Hispanics, yet the claim of the chart is that “lack of access to health insurance and health care plays a role, as do racism and discrimination,” in abortion rates that vary by race.   Is Guttmacher, which is associated with Planned Parenthood, suggesting that racism leads to the higher rates, or is it suggesting that, but for racism and discrimination, the United States would have even higher rates for killing black babies.

That’s what the Providence activists would seem to be suggesting when they talk about “access.”  Pursuing policies that would keep a significant portion of a minority population alive is a strange kind of bigotry.



  • Rhett Hardwick

    “reproductive health care.” The entire discussion is riddled with dog whistles. People opposed to abortion are “anti abortion”; those who favor abortion are not “pro abortion’, they are “pro choice”. My favorite is “a woman can do with her body what she chooses”. If that is true, why can’t she “choose” to fill it up with heroin? Why is alcohol illegal for minor “women”? Why can’t she choose to fill it up with alcohol?

    • Joe Smith

      Rhett – even more basic, if you “own” your body, why can’t you sell your kidney? You can sell your blood and blood parts, eggs, and sperm as well as “rent” your womb (and in some cases rent your sexual organs)? Iran has a viable kidney market. While market forces bring the uneasiness of losing control over the who gets (or gives) resources, it certainly would increase the supply of kidneys and thus save both lives and reduce medical costs.

      Also, you have the instance of surrogacy. Whose ‘right to choose” prevails between the “buyer” and the supplier (surrogate) with a contract that takes away the right of the surrogate to choose?

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/16/melissa-cook-seeks-parental-rights-to-triplets-she/

      • Rhett Hardwick

        Accepting the legality of abortion, let’s look at another question which assumes a married couple. In one case the wife is pregnant, and the father wants the child. She needs no consent to abort. Let’s assume the wife is pregnant, with perhaps the fourth child. The husband demands abortion because he cannot afford to support a fourth child. The wife refuses and has the child, the husband is forced to support it. There seems little in the way of parental equality. this results from “judge made” law, judges address only the problem directly before them. That is why we have a legislative process that will, theoretically, look at the ramifications of a proposed law.

Quantcast