April 27, 2012
Pro-Abortion Congressman Fails Abortion 1001
Pro-abortion Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
The responses continue to pour in to my query, how do you respond to someone who (in the 21st Century) is so far behind the curve that she likens the unborn to a "parasite"? Identifying herself only "Sasharusha," the blogger entered this bizarre comment as an on-line "diary" entry.
But invincible ignorance about the biological development of unborn children (or when most abortions actually take place) is, sadly, not confined to bloggers who find a home at loony places like the dailykos website. Writing in yesterday's Washington Times, Cathy Cleaver Ruse used a series of exchanges that took place in the House Judiciary Committee over the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) to illustrate that in opposing even the most commonsense laws, pro-abortionists thrown commonsense (and elementary biology) out the window.
The antagonists were pro-life Rep. Trent Franks (R-Az.) and pro-abortion Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
What is CIANA? It is a modest attempt to deal with the truth that not all states require notification of or consent from at least one parent, or authorization from a court, prior to performance of an abortion on a minor.
As a result minors in states which do have such laws can avoid them by crossing state lines, either on their own or with the collaboration of abortion providers and others. CIANA would require any abortionist to notify a parent before performing an abortion on a minor who is a resident of another state, with certain exceptions.
(Ms. Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, once served as chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee.)
According to Ruse, Nadler's litany of remarkably ill-informed comments began after Mr. Franks said, "I don't understand what is so liberating about killing little children – it just kind of escapes me."
Nadler's first response was, "I don't believe most abortions are killing children." Perhaps even Nadler was uncomfortable with this, so later he adds, "I do not believe that a blastocyst … is a human being." But this is even sillier. The debate is no longer whether the unborn is human (what else would she/he?) but whether she merits legal protection.
And "blastocyst" refers to the unborn's development the first few days after fertilization. Does Nadler really believe that more than 55 million abortions have been performed before women even know they were pregnant?
But, magnanimous fellow that he is, Nadler did offer (Ruse writes) that "On the other hand an 8-month-old fetus or a 9-month-old fetus, in my opinion, is a human being." Mighty generous of Nadler to acknowledge that children who have long since passed the point at which they can survive outside the womb have attained the status of "human being."
A good reminder that adhering to the pro-abortion mantra requires the suspension of all critical thinking skills and the willingness to utter the most stupendously callous statements in public.
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life