Pro-choice pol: Anti-sex-selection abortion bill doesn’t provide “resources for… babies”
Michigan Rep. John Conyers [pictured], the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill “tramples (on) the rights of women under the guise of nondiscrimination, while doing absolutely nothing to provide women with needed resources for their babies, female and male.”
Citing opposition to the bill from groups such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Conyers said, “If this measure is passed into law, we will then require that medical and mental health professionals violate … doctor-patient confidentiality” and report suspected violations to law enforcement authorities.
~ Alan Silverleib, reporting on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act to ban sex-selection abortions, CNN, May 30
[Photo via citizens4freedom.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Abortion does not provide any of the resources women and their children need, Representative.
However, there are plenty of programs and charities that do provide for their needs.
We can provide more help, if Congress truly wants to help. And if the HHS will let religious charities be free to serve the poor, unhindered by anti-conscience mandates.
so every law that deals with abortion should have help for the woman with needed resources for their children? Why is that concern now, 40 years after Roe? The pro-abortion businesses and proponents have done no such thing, and complains about help to women in forms such as CPC and other aid. ….slight of hand and hypocritical.
oh – and by-the-way, I do love it that this legislator does frankly say BABIES. Good. That is the truth when a woman is pregnant – it is with a baby! Finally.
I honestly don’t think they even know what they are saying anymore.
Speak.
Then think.
“so every law that deals with abortion should have help for the woman with needed resources for their children?”
Also every legislator that votes in favor of it must adopt twelve crack addicted babies.
So in order for all babies to be born, the federal government has to provide for all these babies’ needs?
When did we start this collective belief that the government was responsible for our provisions?? I thought that was what parents are for! Oh wait, Aldous Huxley beat me to it.
So you can kill your child before itsborn, but once you make the amzing gesture to allow his or her birth, then there’s got to be a social program to provide food, shelter and clothing?
John Conyers has a profound misunderstanding of what laws are for. Laws that prohibit drunk driving don’t provide for every offender to have a therapist!
Is this the idiot who thought an island could tip over in the ocean? Or maybe I’m thinking of another dumb politician. Like Carla said, they speak, then think.
Maybe I’m not getting Rep. Conyers’ point–not surprising. But he seems to be saying that the ban on sex-selective abortions ignores the needs of mothers and babies of either gender. Is he saying that women who abort based on gender do so for some perceived economic need? If only they had the resources, they would keep their girl (or boy)? But under these unfortunate economic circumstances, they can only keep their baby if it is a girl (or boy)? Somebody set me straight–is that what he’s saying?
Meh, just like most members of the Congressional Black Caucus, he’s repeating NARAL talking points verbatim. The CBC never met an abortion they didn’t like — if the Klan opened an abortuary in the hood, they would probably support it.
And these same black legislators join the pro-abort chorus that claims that “prolifers only care about children before they’re born. They’re also in the forefront of the movement to close down pregnancy resource centers, which ironically, serve many women of color. Go figure
Gender-selection abortion means: Finding a way to allow boys to live but not girls.
You, Dear John, hate women.
@Sydney: The “Guam might capsize!!!1!” guy was Rep. Hank Johnson. So, different guy this time.
Jamie, he’s saying I know it makes absolutely no moral sense for me to advocate for a procedure that disproportionately affects Blacks in a negatively way (i.e., kills them), but I can’t get reelected without politically advocating for it.
Or, I just sold my soul to the devil. You come too.
@Courtney — The sad thing about the CBC is that most of them are Christians, or purport to be.
I know, Phillymiss. It’s so hard to understand–I would think that as folks who have been historically discriminated against might be especially sensitive to this segment of the population, unborn women (and all babies).
The thing that riles me the most is how they vet who is truly Black and who’s only a pretender. Wonder what they might make of our new superstar in Utah?
Alphonzo on Zo Nation tells it–do you ever listen to him?
“So you can kill your child before itsborn, but once you make the amzing gesture to allow his or her birth, then there’s got to be a social program to provide food, shelter and clothing?”
So Courtnay, you want women to give birth regardless of their economic circumstances; but when they do, and they have no support, you would throw them out into the street with no safety net? How very Christian and how very “pro-life.” Not all women so fortunate as to live in the affluent Sewanee area. In case you don’t know, the state no longer has orphanages. But again, nice to know that you would leave a young mother with no resources whatsoever. It’s comments like yours that make the pro-life movement look like the bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites that they are. Or as Philly Miss said
“And these same black legislators join the pro-abort chorus that claims that “prolifers only care about children before they’re born.”
You’re comment would seem to validate that.
there wouldn’t be an issue of funding, or supporting a woman with a new child, if the gov’t would just take all the money they give to PP and give it to a CPC.
CC: The state’s are free to do whatever they want by way of social programs. The federal government’s job is not to play nanny to any of us. That’s not in the least cruel. It’s simply up to the states.
What part of Constitutionally limited scope of government is beyond your capacity to grasp?
Sydney M,
Conyers is the guy who said he didn’t have two days and two lawyers to explain the Health Care Bill to him before he voted on it.
How about if we simply call this act the Ban on Sex-Selective Abortions and make the doctors who perform the abortions the criminals, not the mothers. In that way, a woman’s privacy is not violated. Each violation would cost the doctor five-thousand dollars to be donated to the nearest CPC. Everyone wins, Mr. Conyers (except the pro-abortion lobbyists).
No, I know, I know! Propose a progressive-sounding solution!
We can resolve the problem by taxing the rich (of course). Just tax boys at $30,000 each if your income is over a million, and use that to give tax credits for girls if your income is under the poverty level.
;-)
CC, sorry I couldn’t get back to you last night. One of my products of conception had a late baseball game, and the other product was celebrating his birthday. Of course, they are both males, so I was happy to let them live. My oldest, the girl, well, we are reevaluating my choice.
The War on Poverty: failure.
Social engineering: failure
The welfate state/reform: failure
The culture of dependency: failure
The sexual revolution: failure
We do no favors to the poor by making them dependent on the government for their support. It’s good for for the very immediate moment (the hungry get food, the homeless get a bed for the night) , but in the long term, it’s just another form of slavery. Our entitlement programs have failed our poor. It would be an entirely different discussion if we saw folks using temporary help instead of being entrenched, generationally, waiting at the mailbox for their check.
If Michelle Obama and Mayor Bloomberg are so keen on telling America’s youth whay kind and how much of food we should be eating, why won’t they extend that prescription to sex? Just imagine the influence that Mrs. Obama could have if she addressed today’s (especially black female) youth and said, the culture has got to change. Too much sex (french fries and a Big Gulp) and the wrong kind (high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated soybean oil) will ruin your health and keep you from realizing your dreams!
BUT WE COULD’NT POSSIBLY TELL TEENAGERS GROW A CONSCIENCE AND NOT HAVE SEX EVERY TIME THEY CAN!!!! HORRORS!! HOW INCREDIBLY JUDGMENTAL AND PATRIARCHAL!!!! (like how I threw that in?)
Oh, and BTW, don’t begrudge me my affluent life in affluent Sewanee. My husband and I worked like he&& to get there.
courtnay, i absolutely agree. i took advantage of the “system” when my daughter and i needed to and i will be forever grateful for the program but it was only temporary, and as it should be, and once i realized my potential, i removed myself from it and never looked back. “assistance” is just that. It is not to be depended upon forever.