By DEXTER DUGGAN
The UK Guardian posted a news story that there was “outcry and a debate” in Virginia because a woman’s will specified that her healthy pet dog be killed, cremated, and the ashes buried with her.
This was an “unusual death,” the May 23 report said — unusual enough for a news story. Animal-shelter workers reportedly had “spent two weeks trying to talk the executor of the woman’s estate out of the plan” because a new home easily could have been found for the healthy dog, named Emma, which was a human being-type name.
The story added, “Larry Spiaggi, the president of the Virginia Funeral Directors Association, said he found the practice of euthanizing a healthy dog and burying it with its owner abhorrent.”
Nevertheless, the death was legally done, leading a state legislator to consider “legislation to address the problem,” the Guardian said.
Problem? What problem? Emma indisputably was the owner’s legal property to be disposed of as she pleased, and apparently the owner had such a fondness for Emma — a fondness, however, that wasn’t conducive to Emma’s well-being nor very existence — that she didn’t want the two of them separated.
Which is entirely different from permissive abortion, which separates the human baby, although just as fatally, from her mother forever.
Virginia, of course, is home to permissive abortion enthusiasts including Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam and Democrat state legislator Kathy Tran, both in the news back in January for their thriving umbilical connection to unlimited abortion. They both spoke coolly, smoothly, bloodlessly about doing bloody, blasted evil.
Probably just about anyone who read about Emma of Virginia’s induced death was appalled for one reason — killing a healthy dog that easily could have had a new home, but her death was to satisfy her late owner’s emotional need.
Yet every day thousands of healthy human babies of healthy mothers are killed in Virginia and throughout the United States only to satisfy an emotional need, and maybe not even the mother’s emotion, but a callous boyfriend’s, or sex trafficker’s, or prim parents who don’t want their daughter embarrassing them, or the office boss who demands undivided loyalty to the desk job.
Killing one healthy dog stirs an “outcry,” but killing countless healthy babies of healthy mothers in routine medicalized executions is the way the United States has been gaveled into operating by judicial dictatorship that loves getting good ink from unendingly unethical editors. We’re not even supposed to notice, or to object.
Veteran columnist Paul Greenberg was to recall that as a young editorial writer back in 1973, he welcomed Roe v. Wade from the Supreme Court as “a carefully crafted, limited decision applicable only in some exceptional cases. Which was all a lot of hooey, but I swallowed it, and regurgitated it in editorials.”
Then Greenberg noticed that the numbers of abortions were up into the millions, killing numberless healthy babies of healthy mothers. “With a little verbal manipulation,” he wrote in 2011, “any crime can be rationalized, even promoted. Verbicide precedes homicide. The trick is to speak of fetuses, not unborn children….Just don’t look too closely at those sonograms. We are indeed strangely and wondrously made.”
Like the previously militant pro-abortion doctor Bernard N. Nathanson, Greenberg changed sides because of the evidence — a reversion to reality that the nation’s highest court never has deigned to practice about this slaughter.
Overnight in 1973 the Supreme Court radically imposed upon the entire nation an illegal, unconstitutional, unscientific mess. The court’s 7-2 majority pretended that no less than the U.S. Constitution commanded how abortion practice was to be treated in the law, down to details about the weeks of pregnancy, despite what sonograms in the future were to show.
In nearly a half-century, the court stubbornly has refused to allow for significant alteration — thus wrongly instructing the nation’s judiciary at every level — even though physicians in life-giving specialties would faint if they were told to practice diagnosis and surgery for the heart or brain according to the views and with the tools of 1973.
Most people in the nation would have been shocked if they knew what upheaval the High Court had done to law, medicine, ethics, indeed the very fabric of society, but they, like writer Greenberg, were served up “a lot of hooey” that kept them distracted.
The Establishment was pleased with Justice Harry Blackmun’s result. Decades passed with only a crack allowed here and there in the façade, even though pro-life voters’ developing power literally was changing political results across the nation. Then: hardly had 2019 arrived than the new civil war proclaimed itself boldly.
“Safe, legal and rare” had been pro-abortionists’ deceitful description of their goal even into the twenty-first century, but finally they decided they could drop the pretense. Any abortion at any time for any reason became the official stand of the national Democrat Party and all its presidential hopefuls, from coast to coast.
Phony “Catholic” Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York instructed that state landmarks be lighted in pink to celebrate Empire State Democrats legalizing permissive “abortion” even into the fourth trimester. Leftist Democrats squealed in delight because, as they saw it, they were shaming horrid, backward conservatives.
As usual, science was on the side of the pro-lifers, though, and they increased their efforts in states to challenge High Court superstitions by recognizing legal protection for preborn babies as soon as their little heartbeats were heard. They were trying to make abortion “rare,” which is what no less than Bill and Hillary Clinton assured the nation they wanted, not so long ago.
A new civil war was here for sure, as dramatically illustrated on the opposite banks of the Mississippi River. On the east, radical Democrat majority legislators of Illinois prepared to compel participation in expanded permissive abortion. On May 29, the conservative Washington Free Beacon website quoted a pro-life spokesman, Peter Breen, saying:
“These legislators have rejected the deep convictions of a strong majority of Illinoisans and voted to legalize late-term abortions without limit… This bill expressly strips all rights from unborn children and wipes nearly every abortion regulation off the books in Illinois. The legacy of any legislator who voted for this bill is a cruel dehumanization on a mass scale.”
The Free Beacon article quoted Illinois pro-life nurse and activist Jill Stanek about the irony of pro-abortionists rhetorically denouncing “back alley abortions,” even though that’s what they were enabling here.
Their action, Stanek said, “allows abortions by a non-doctor, in a clinic that’s not inspected and doesn’t have to report injuries. It allows self-abortions and forces all health insurance policies to cover abortions, including religious organizations.”
On the Mississippi’s west bank, the Republican legislative majority in Missouri passed strong pro-life protections that Missouri Right to Life hailed in a May 24 news release as “groundbreaking legislation that will save lives and set the standard for pro-life legislation nationwide.” It was signed into law by GOP Gov. Mike Parson.
Parson also stood up against Planned Parenthood as the abortion mogul tried to evade complying with state health regulations as the license for its St. Louis abortion clinic was about to expire, which would leave Missouri without a licensed abortuary.
The Kansas City Star posted a video on May 29 of Parson explaining to reporters how Planned Parenthood had brought this difficulty on itself.
In an interesting coincidence, only two days earlier, May 27, the Star posted a story about a Missouri woman, Elizabeth Kough, who’d conceived and given birth to a “miracle baby” even though she had both of her fallopian tubes removed three years earlier.
This story’s tone was positive about what grew unexpectedly inside her — “the tiny fetus nestled safely in Kough’s uterus.” The reporter quoted her: “I’m a planner. But now, you know, sometimes the best-laid plans, you need to just do away with those. He is a beautiful baby. I am exceptionally lucky to have him in my life.”
Legislatures taking pro-life action generally had Republican majorities and the governor’s chair, while pro-abortion state legislatures were Democrat-dominated. An interesting exception was conservative Louisiana, whose Democrat governor, John Bel Edwards, said he planned to sign a “heartbeat” bill, thus being true to his 2015 pro-life campaign pledge and previous record as a state legislator.
In a May 29 statement, Edwards said, “As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.”
This pleased Democrats for Life of America (democratsforlife.org), which has had plenty to do just to argue against the national Democratic Party kicking out all pro-lifers. A May 21 DFLA news release noted the party’s Progressive Caucus calling for their expulsion.
Edwards apparently decided he’d rather please the voters of his own Pelican State than the radicals who insist on trying to impose their will nationally from Manhattan and the District of Columbia.
The tensions from this twenty-first century civil war will have to cause something to snap in a nation where sonograms on kitchens’ refrigerator doors show preborn babies dancing, but deadening text in court decisions and dominant-media stories insist on locking in fantasies and hoaxes.
Radically pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced her view on May 28, concerning an Indiana abortion-law case, that an abortion-seeking woman “is not a ‘mother’.” Does Ginsburg not concede the woman is seeking an end to her motherhood? Or would Ginsburg even argue that a woman who suffered a miscarriage never was a mother?
In the Indiana case, Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, the Supreme Court reversed an appeals court decision that had disallowed respectful disposal of aborted babies’ remains, but it dodged reversal of the lower court’s allowing for abortions based solely on race, sex or disability.
If babies can be aborted for reasons that otherwise would be judged unlawfully prejudiced, how can their battered corpses deserve the same respectful treatment as other human bodies?
Pro-Constitutional Justice Clarence Thomas delivered devastating criticism of the eugenics movement’s goal to weed out the unwanted under the guise of medicine, while Ginsburg revealingly had said in a 2009 New York Times interview that she thought the Roe decision took account of dealing with “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Either Thomas’ light of day or Ginsburg’s dead of night has to win. They both can’t.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress