Democrats and those on the extreme left (I realize I am being redundant here) have been moving more and more towards expanding laws that allow the killing of children. Earlier this year the leftist-dominated NY State legislature passed a law to cheers and applause that allowed a child to be killed up to the moment of birth.
The NY Governor celebrated that new law by lighting state sites pink. Black or blood red would have been a more appropriate color.
BREAKING: New York State Senate just made HISTORY and passed the Reproductive Health Act on the anniversary of #RoevWade! pic.twitter.com/u2diMzgSQW
— 📢 PPGNY Action Fund (@PPGNYact) January 22, 2019
The rationale given by these so-called intelligent legislators is that they were “protecting” a woman’s reproductive rights. Few would argue about a woman’s right to decide whether to reproduce or not. Even the so-called “deplorables” in flyover country agree with that concept. However, deciding whether to reproduce and killing a child are not the same. This is an absolute truth regardless of how often the Democrats try to say otherwise.
After the NY bill was passed and signed into law, Virginia tried to do the same thing. There the governor went on record as supporting allowing a baby who was unwanted to be left to die if that is what the mother decided. Infanticide had arrived in full force among the coastal elites. The governor of Rhode Island expressed an interest in doing the same thing.
The pendulum is now swinging in the other direction. Recently several states in “flyover” country have passed what are known as heartbeat bills. These bills restrict abortion to before a heartbeat can be detected. Georgia and Alabama have been the most recent states to do this. Missouri is on the verge of joining their ranks. North Carolina passed such a bill that was vetoed by the governor. South Carolina is currently debating such a potential law.
This has enraged Democratic Party politicians and pro-abortion groups. They are again calling for pro-life Democrats who hold elected office to be purged from the party. Back in April, 2017, Tom Perez, the DNC Chair, had called for ideological purity on this issue.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), a 2020 candidate for president, told the Washington Post on Wednesday that being pro-abortion should be a required position if one wanted to belong to the Democratic Party.
“As a party, we should be 100 percent pro-choice, and it should be nonnegotiable. We should not settle for less, and if our party cannot support women’s basic human rights, their fundamental freedoms to make decisions about their bodies and their futures, then we are not the party of women. … I will not compromise on women’s reproductive freedom.”
Let’s take a careful look at what Gillibrand said and what it really means. The first sentence is pretty clear. Debate about the merits of killing a child cannot be allowed. One has to ask why this should be the case. Is the Democrat’s position on abortion so meritless that it cannot withstand differences of opinion within the Party ranks? If a nationally-known Democrat came out as pro-life, would the pro-abortion position of the Democrats collapse like a house of cards?
In the next sentence, “…if our party cannot support women’s basic human rights, their fundamental freedoms to make decisions about their bodies and their futures, then we are not the party of women” Gillibrand does what almost all Democrats do. She defines killing a child as a “basic human right” of a woman. Since when is the premeditated killing of anyone a basic human right?
At what point should this “right” go away? As is clear from recent legislative attempts by the Democrats, they want to extend it to newborns who are “unwanted” or “inconvenient.” How long after birth should this “right” be extended? To the 1st week of life after birth? How about the 1st month? Maybe the 1st year? There are some within the party who have begun to advocate these kinds of ideas.
Of course, Gillibrand was one of 44 US Senators who voted NOT to protect the lives of newborns who survived abortion attempts.
In Gillibrand’s last sentence (…I will not compromise on women’s reproductive freedom.) she once again equates killing a child with a woman’s reproductive freedoms. This simply is not the case.
Supporting this “right” diminishes the value of all lives. This country has defined all individuals’ right to life within its founding documents. All lives are important including the most vulnerable among us. If our society survives, in the future people will look back and wonder how our society ever countenanced the taking of the most innocent of lives.
Supporting abortion is akin to Nazi Germany’s approach to the “Jewish problem” of the 1930’s. The Nazis felt that eradicating Jewish lives was a basic right. The difference is that a whole lot more children have been killed than the Nazi’s ever killed.
The Democrats have been trying to brainwash the country into believing that reproductive rights and killing a child are the same thing. It’s time to call out this narrative for what it is. False and demeaning to women and obviously fatal to the children caught in its web.
Let’s put an end to stopping beating hearts.