New Mexico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont and Washington also wish to expand abortion access to truly barbaric proportions.
To some nations in the world, the United States may appear to be overly "conservative" or "backwards" regarding its general position on abortion. Russia, China, Canada, and Australia all allow this practice in generally unrestricted terms. Europeans are generally allowing of first trimester abortions. Social attitudes about the practice vary, with Sweden being the most permissive in terms of attitude, but Russia being the place where a woman is most likely to have had an abortion.
While the legal position in the United States on abortion is generally legal under all conditions as determined by the outcome of the 1973
Roe v. Wade decision in the US Supreme Court, the social context of the practice is highly debated and generally disapproved of, even by those Americans who believe that the procedure should still be kept legal. One of the most emotionally satisfying statements in the US that actually summarized the attitudes of many "pro-choice" Americans was that of Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton's statement that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare."
In other words,
the legality of the procedure is one thing, and the promotion of the procedure is quite another. It was summarized in this thought:
We think that to be in the position of determining whether or not to abort a child is a horrifying and extremely serious matter. However, we believe it to be safer if this procedure is kept legal, lest it actually become dangerous because of inferior resources if it were banned, and done clandestinely.This point of view was generally accepted as a secular compromise to a horrifying situation. Far from the ultraliberal attitudes of progressive Europe, the United States remained a relatively conservative country, socially guided by Christian attitudes concerning the sanctity of life, even that life which is yet unborn.
All this has changed.
Starting with the signing of New York State's "Reproductive Health Act", many states are now moving towards ensuring that abortion is legal under all conditions,
to the full term of pregnancy, even to the point where perfectly viable, birthed babies may be killed after delivery if the mother so desires.
This report from New York was immediately followed up by this news item from Virginia's own Legislature, in its attempt to pass a similar law, made even more clearly brutal by Governor Northam's defense and explanation of the procedure
post delivery in which
a living baby would be subject to being deliberately killed at the wish of the mother.This law, like the New York constitutional amendment allows the unborn, or just-born (and alive even though "aborted"), no human rights.
There is really no way this action cannot be seen for what it is: infanticide, a very particularly cruel form of murder of the innocent,
on no further grounds than that the baby exists and that the mother does not want it.We covered in another news piece how this ability appears to be the prize "right" of feminist women, who were represented in Congress by the infamous
Women in White, who sat stone-faced as President Donald Trump appealed for Congress to make and pass a law banning late-term abortions.
However, the President's request was well-met by conservatives in the House chamber, and indeed, even some pro-choices were set off their guard by the New York and Virginia legislative moves. Virginia's attempt failed.
Abortion is legal in the US, and it is legal at any point in the pregnancy in many states. This is not often reported, probably because abortion is not palatable to public discourse when a fully-formed, living baby is to be the subject of this procedure. The national discourse has for years been "safely" diverted to what appears to be more metaphysical debate about the unseen processes in pregnancy, such as "when does life really begin", and even "when does the embryo receive a soul?"
This is probably by design to avoid the much harsher realities that were exposed in
New York, Virginia and Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont. All these states have either passed or are trying to pass laws that protect abortion rights, sometimes to similar extremes as New York's law contains. However, many other states, such as Colorado, already allow full and late-term abortion procedures.
However, not every state in the US is trying to magnify abortion rights. Some are trying to limit this procedure, or even outlaw it entirely, should
Roe v. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court, a possibility that seems enhanced now with five "conservative" Justices on the US Supreme Court. States like Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, and even the aforementioned Rhode Island are seeking passage of laws to sharply limit or completely outlaw the procedure in this event.
CDC graph showing abortion rates per 1,000 US women from 1969 to 2014. Courtesy: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Guttmacher Institute.
Interestingly, both the abortion rate and the actual number of abortions performed in the US has fallen drastically in the time period between 1980 and 2014. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention record that there were almost 1.3 million babies aborted in 1980, peaking at 1.43 million in 1990, before dropping again to 2015's rate of 638,000. Numbers and counts vary by statistical poll, however,
with 2017's numbers showing 882,240 in this study. The common feature of declining numbers and rates is still evident.
Statistical sources on this issue were not able to explain the reason for the drop in both rate and number of abortions, but a speculation might be that some exposure to the reality of what abortion actually is has served to deter both unwanted pregnancy from even happening, and also to try to find a way to take care of human beings guilty of nothing more than their existence. Perhaps this is too generous an assessment, but it is one possibility.
President Trump was loud and clear on several occasions about his stance on the issue of abortion.
His State of the Union speech featured his saying, "all children, born and unborn are made in the Holy image of God." This was followed up by further comments at the National Prayer Breakfast, in which he continued to show a strong pro-life position.
Naturally, some pols dismiss this as nothing more than the President's attempts to energize his base for the 2020 elections. To credit such opinions, it may indeed do this. But President Trump has really put his money where his mouth is in terms of governing as a conservative, or at least, common-sense oriented President.
The combination of Governor Andrew Cuomo's legislation, the Virginian attempt and the March for Life, featuring its highly slurred story about Roman Catholic teenaged boys who were at the event, plus the President's speech have made for a truly polarizing moment
. To be sure, political winds in the US are so unruly now that longstanding position issues are now pushed aside in mere days, or even hours. However the mainstream media is hard-pressed to refute what happened here. The American Left tipped its hand, perhaps a little too much for even some who are ideologically liberal, and some of the harshest, most sinister aspects of their worldview were brought into focus.
This reaction extends even to both real-life and Internet commentary on such news pieces. Tucker Carlson took on uber-feminist Monica Klein on his program on January 30th, and their exchange, most notably Monica's sheer
fury, was a sign that the Left is energized on this subject, so much so that any sense of nicety has been discarded:
For Ms. Klein, this issue is a source of pure anger, as is clearly evident on her face. This was not a woman who was playing the ideological talking head for the news media hit; far from it. She really believes what she says, and has taken that fury to the point of
irrationality.
Some comments on this issue appear in many publications that also reveal extremely fiery emotion on both sides. The rhetoric swings from "baby-killers" to "woman-haters" quite freely on this topic, and this is honestly a shame. Such emotional incendiary bombs are avoidances on both sides. While people call each other names, no one pays attention to the topic itself. This is, of course, by design.
When the real issue is looked at, as was shown so clearly in New York and Virginia,
the topic of the value of human life shows its profound reality to everyone. If that happened often enough or long enough, it might change the substance of the conversation.
The result might then be a real change.
Comment: And do not miss this bit of informed and righteous anger from a nurse: