April 26, 2010

By Dave Andrusko

Sometimes a single word can be so filled with meaning it can form the basis of a lengthy and very fruitful discussion. For example in a class I led yesterday, we talked for 55 minutes about what to "recover" could/should/might mean.

So it is with a headline blaring on the front page of Monday's USA Today: "States seek new ways to restrict abortions." Of course, "restrict" is the carefully chosen word, one that connotes a [bad] limitation on a [good] thing. In fact a much more accurate description is "protective" legislation. (More about that below.)

The gist of the USA Today article this morning is that (according to Alison Young), "Dozens of states are passing or debating new restrictions on abortion, a trend fueled in part by passage of the nation's new health care law." It is quite true that ObamaCare has sparked a grassroots rebellion, but it is no less true that states are exploring new routes to the same destination: to protect the unborn.

Let's take the latter development first. As we go through them, keep in mind the enormous educational and organizational benefits that accrue to the particular pro-life legislation making its way through the legislative labyrinth.

In Nebraska, legislators passed the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Prevention Act" by a margin of 44-5. Will passage be that overwhelmingly in other states? Clearly no, but you don't need near-unanimity.

And state legislators are great imitators. Over time other states will consider the merits of a bill that says, "Hey, whatever your opinion is about abortion in general, surely you must agree that it is a stain on our collective conscience if we butcher babies capable of experiencing pain."

Pro-lifers talk a lot about "commonsense" legislation. This is a perfect example of how much of the public will race to join us-- if they are aware of it.

Moreover, at least some state Democratic legislators who tend not to be as reflexively pro-abortion as are most Congressional Democrats will strongly consider coming our way. (I talk some more about Nebraska's new law at www.nationalrighttolifenewstoday.org. Be sure to check it out.)

Likewise there is a bill whose fate is still up in the air in Georgia that would prevent abortions based on the race or sex of the unborn child. As NRL State Legislative Director Mary Spaulding Balch put it so eloquently, "These appalling forms of discrimination which take the life of an unborn child simply because of his or her sex or race have no place in America."

Most Americans are vaguely aware that babies are aborted abroad because they are girls. But only a relative handful know that "sex-selection abortion, something once thought of as confined to certain parts of Asia, has spread to the United States."

Alas it is not widely known at all, as Balch points out, "that more African American babies have been killed by abortion during the past 37 years of legalized abortion than the total number of African American deaths from all other causes combined." That is a stunner by anyone's standards.

We will be discussing this at length in the next issue of National Right to Life News, but there's a synopsis of where we are in the states as of April 24 in Part Two.

We will also be talking in NRL News about how states are taking advantage of a provision in the health care "reform" bill that allows states to prohibit the inclusion of abortion in the state "exchanges" that the bill created. This is available because the final law explicitly says that the Department of Health and Human Services may not declare abortion to be an "essential" (i.e., required) benefit.

As of this writing a growing number of states have passed laws prohibiting the inclusion of abortion in their exchanges, and others are working on similar legislation. ObamaCare, it should be remembered, is being challenged not just on abortion but also on other grounds as well.

In that vein, it's important to keep track of the public's opposition and why it is not diminishing. Rasmussen Reports this morning explains "that 58% of likely voters nationwide favor repeal, while 38% are opposed. Those figures are little changed from a week ago and include 47% who Strongly Favor repeal." By contrast 29% strongly oppose the repeal effort

(Parenthetically, according to Rasmussen, "Sixty percent of voters nationwide believe the new law will increase the federal budget deficit, while just 19% say it will reduce the deficit. Fifty-seven percent think the law will increase the cost of health care, while 18% believe it will reduce costs. Fifty-one percent expect the quality of care to decline, while 24% predict it will get better.")

Collectively, these legislative measures say two things. First, we oppose ObamaCare on numerous grounds, and will do everything we can to prohibit the inclusion of abortion in the state "exchanges."

Second, we are seeking to enact legislation that protects unborn babies in as many ways as we can and ensure that their mothers make a truly informed decision when making that life-and-death "choice."

Part Two
Part Three