partial_birth_diagramMontana may become the first state to force abortionists to provide anesthesia to preborn babies aged 20 weeks and older who they are about to dismember.

A Republican-dominated House and Senate just sent HB 479 to the desk of Democrat pro-abortion Gov. Steve Bullock.

HB 479 is a spin on an outright 20-week abortion ban, which Montana pro-life advocates decided against, believing the governor would veto it.

The thinking, obviously, is this bill will be harder for Bullock to oppose.

A law such as this serves three purposes:

1. Educates the public about the humanity of preborn babies, juxtaposed against the atrocity of abortion

2. Gives abortion-minded mothers one last chance to reconsider – a final big tug on their maternal heartstrings

3. Provides compassionate, humanitarian pain relief if the mother nonetheless proceeds with the abortion, to a baby no one in Montana can as yet legally stop from being brutally torn limb from limb

Of course, the abortion industry opposes this bill - for all the aforementioned reasons. They lose tactical ground every time the focus is placed back on the baby, they lose money when abortion-minded mothers change their minds, and they could care less whether babies suffer while being aborted. (Who knows, they may relish the thought, sadists that they are.)

So they lie, ludicrously claiming babies don’t feel pain at 20 weeks, despite the fact babies 18-wks-old and up routinely receive anesthesia when undergoing prenatal surgery.

And by now it should come as no surprise that pro-life purists, or “immediatists” as they like to be called, oppose this bill as well.

There’s something wrong with a picture that has pro- and anti-abortion advocates working to block the same pro-life legislation.

Nevertheless, if there is a debate between pro-lifers to have on this bill, it should be an honest one, which it is currently not.

An honest debate would be on whether support of abortion restrictions or regulations is to actually sustain abortion, which is what immediatists claim.

They say that were all pro-lifers to focus single-mindedly on stopping all abortions, rather than saving babies around the edges, we would stop abortion faster, and without “compromising.”

This claim is unproven and, in fact, could be considered disproven if the failure of all statewide personhood initiatives to date is taken into consideration. (Although I want to make clear I support personhood initiatives. I basically support any and every pro-life initiative.)

Nor are they undertaking any massive effort to make abortions illegal in the U.S. Immediatist group American Right to Life gave its board 10 years to “end abortion in America” – or resign. That was in 2007. They have two years.

In fact, the only massive effort underway by immediatists is to attack incrementalist efforts and supporters.

At any rate, there is no effort without “compromise” short of enacting a worldwide ban against all abortions. This may be true, immediatists say, but then there is such a thing as “principled” compromise, vs “unprincipled” compromise – which they decide.

In other words, they decide which babies are morally acceptable to leave behind until such future unknown year when all can be saved.  And basically they have determined geographical incrementalism is principled, and all other incrementalism is unprincipled.

So, banning all abortions in Mississippi would be principled, even though this is the same as saying “and then you can kill the baby” in all 49 other states and the rest of the world, but a federal ban against abortions past the gestational age of 20 weeks would be unprincipled.

At any rate, this debate has been raging for decades.

But what is not acceptable is to misconstrue this debate, for instance as Abolish Human Abortion did yesterday, misrepresenting Father Frank Pavone’s statement supporting Montana’s bill


If I’m wrong then the only other conclusion to reach is leaders of AHA are incapable of critical thought as to the rationale for Montana’s fetal pain bill.

As pro-life advocate Tom Herring wrote in response:

AHA falsely portrays Pavone as someone who simply wants babies sedated before they are butchered. What AHA fails to see is that fighting over legislation to numb the baby’s pain makes headlines and causes clueless Americans to consider the fact that abortion is actually a form of human torture. This is common knowledge to AHA and to pro-lifers, but it is a shocking and horrifying revelation to many ignorant and otherwise disinterested voters.

This legislation is one more call, one more appeal to the conscience of a country that is marked largely by its indifference in the matter. The people are indifferent because, for one thing, nobody has told them about the excruciating pain which babies experience in abortion.

Fr. Pavone is trying to tell them about it. And you choose to mock and deride him for it. You’ve somehow managed to convince yourselves the world is upside down: Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life are the real enemy, joining pro-aborts to attack Pavone is the answer, and babies will be saved if we can make enough memes against pro-lifers.

Abby Johnson added to the obfuscation by half-quoting Fr. Pavone:


Pro-Life Action League’s Eric Scheidler generically noted:

Those who attack pro-lifers for “incrementalism” don’t seem to have looked up the word.

They pretend that, say, a law requiring fetuses to be anesthetized before being aborted is an end in itself, rather than an achievable *increment* on the way towards the ultimate goal of ending legal abortion.

Worse, they pretend that we’re somehow okay with babies being aborted, as long as they don’t feel pain (or they’re less than 20 weeks old, or their grandparents know about it, or an ultrasound is performed, etc.).

The reality is, we’re so determined to end legal abortion that we’re using *every* legal means available *right now* to save *every* unborn child we can.

12smallA final conclusion to draw is almost too horrifying to imagine.

That is that immediatists do not care that late-term babies headed for slaughter this very moment - whether or not they approve – are feeling the excruciating pain of their dismembered deaths.

They’re clearly willing to let these babies feel the torture of their murders while they wait for the day 5-10-20-50 years down the road when abortion is stopped.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...