All errors should be reported to

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Republicans should limit abortion

Let me make this clear: I am pro-choice. Any baby who wants to be aborted should be allowed.

That is why I dismissed as too clever by half the argument by Glenn Reynolds this week that Republicans in Congress should not have any law on abortion because of a belief in limited government. If that's the case, then I shall mark Professor Reynolds as opposing any and all new legislation.

A bill limiting abortion to the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy makes perfect sense for Republicans.

First, the bill will not be law. President Obama -- whose mother chose a shotgun marriage over aborting him in 1961 -- will veto it. That makes the effect of the legislation as no harm, no foul to moderate pro-choice voters while telling opponents of abortion that Republicans are definitely on their side.

Second, this is not a state's rights issue. This became federal law when the U.S. Supreme Court wrote it in Roe v. Wade in January 1973. The justices arbitrarily struck down bans on abortion in 46 states without a single legislative debate. To use the 10th Amendment argument against federal action to limit this unholy and unconstitutional decision is just plain wrong.

Third, the law is scientific. Life increasingly is becoming viable earlier in the pregnancy. Hospitals have a crude form of an artificial womb called an NICU. A child in England was born after just 23 weeks of gestation and lives today.

Abortion is wrong. Following the fall of Rome, Christianity adopted the ethic of saving the child's life even at the cost of the mother. In 1973, America regressed to ancient Rome.

Republicans should do all they can to reverse this. Specious arguments about limited government should be brushed away as the folly they are.


  1. Take the Rand Paul approach on this. He said he would answer media questions on abortion when the ask Hillary how many seconds before birth can you kill a 7 lb baby. Pass a law that makes it illegal to kill a 7 lb baby at 39 weeks. If it survives a veto, do it for 6.5 lbs an 38 weeks. Eventually you find out the democrat's "red line" for abortion.

  2. The science is settled: a pre-born baby is viable at 24 weeks, if not earlier. Its life and civil rights are entitled to the protection of the state. The fact that such a child has not yet seen the light of day is irrelevant. One day old babies are no less dependent for their survival as are pre-born babies, and we don't allow their mothers to kill them.

    Abortion has killed many more babies in this country than the Jews, Catholics, and Roma killed during the Holocaust by the Nazis. That has to be an appalling realization to anyone with any sense of decency or morality. That is why I insist on labeling the legalized murder of pre-born babies the Abortion Holocaust. If words matter, let's call it what it is: a Holocaust against our children.

  3. This may sound racist but consider how many cities would look like detroit and have the murder rate of chicago if we had 35 million more blacks.

    While I am against abortion I look at our society and feel more and more like sanger.

    1. Detroit didn't rot because its population was black. It rotted because its population was Democrat. Watch Seattle destroy itself. Mostly white. Obsessively "Progressive". So what's the solution for that? Reeducation camps?

    2. I agree with way2opinionated: urban problems start with and fester because of the regressive (not progressive) social policies of the Democrats. Abortion should not be a casual method of birth control, not when contraceptives are easy to get, cheap, and now with Obamacare available to all women. For heavens sake, abortions should be harder, not easier, to get than regulated medicines with ephedrine in them. If a woman can get an abortion on demand on the grounds of personal privacy, should the government be allowed to invade my privacy and limit my purchases of a "controlled" medicine?

  4. I am willing to trade ending the death penalty for ending abortion.