Cruz on Texas Late-Term Abortion Ban: Without Life, There is No Pursuit of Happiness
I note that he glaringly left out the word "equal."
HuH? Virtually every point in that letter SUPPORTS Sen. Cruz’s position because an unbord child is undoubtably a person. The fact they can feel pain just proves that.
I would rather that there be 50 state laws rather than one national law regarding abortion. To that end, I disagree with Sen. Cruz here. Once Federal laws are passed, they have a tendency to be cemented in stone and part of the tragedy of Roe v Wade was that nine justices usurped the will of the states.
But it should be noted that even Roe v Wade recognized a difference between early-term abortion and late-term abortion saying they might approve restrictions on late-term abortions and that is what these current bills are all about.
I would, however, approve of federal legislation that forces abortion providers to be held to the same standards of any facility that does invasive surgery. For way too long, these “clinics” have received a free ride to perform abortions in filthy and unhealthy surroundings without the sort of standards for cleanliness and equipment sterility that one would expect for this type of surgery.
By not codifying federal law on when an abortion can be performed or denied, I think it makes it easier for Roe v. Wade to be eventually overturned and returned to the states which is the ultimate goal. Like Obamacare, the more you amend it, the harder it becomes to scrap the whole thing.
EternalVigilance, I understand what you are saying, but you don’t seem to realize that we are in a long-term war.
You gain ground when and where you can, then you work to gain more.
This bill will limit abortions substantially over the current law.
This reminds me of the fight in Idaho back in the late 1980’s. There was a law that had been passed by Idaho’s legislature that would have restricted abortion to ONLY rape, incest, and imminent death (not “health”) of the mother. This means that 95% of all abortions would have been eradicated in that state.
But, because the law did not go for the full 100% including not allowing abortion for rape/incest/life of mother - many pro-lifers actively worked against passage of the bill. National Right to Life supported it, understanding that you win this war a battle at a time. Pass this law, then work to remove the remaining abortions.
This law is not the end. If it passes and is signed into law (hopefully), then you go to work on the remaining problems.
You are shooting the pro-life movement in the back when you work for defeat of a bill that will save the lives of thousands of unborn children. Pass this one, then begin work on the next step. Sometimes you have to push evil back one step at a time.
Would it be moral to oppose a bill that spared paraplegics while quadraplegics still killed?
Of course. At least it spares the paraplegics. Supporting it does NOT endorse the murder of the quadraplegics.
If I were a quadraplegic, I’d vote for it! At least spare some people!
And then I’d continue to work for the protection of the rest, of course.
Way to go, pro-lifers! *clap clap clap*