The Sandra Fluke episode refuses to go away. While liberals have succeeded in temporarily distracting everyone from the main issue, we must remember that the real controversy is the Obama Regime’s attempt to dictate to religious institutions, forcing them to act against their most cherished and deeply held beliefs – not women’s access to contraception. The HHS mandate was an attempt to control or limit freedom of religion, and must be defeated. If we have arrived at the point at which freedom of religion, the first part of the first amendment of the Constitution can be mandated into submission, there is literally nothing holding government back from taking away all rights. The issue has become a lightning rod because the Catholic Church, as well as Protestant Christians and most people of religious faith, including all Conservatives firmly believe that the government’s mandating of faith-based institutions to provide abortifacient and contraceptive services against their most deeply held beliefs is an attempt to force acceptance of abortion as a settled argument.
I ran across an interesting perspective with regard to the abortion debate. The debate is usually framed by liberals in terms of “woman’s rights“, meaning that the most important question to be answered is whether the woman in question wants to carry the pregnancy to term or not. The perspective, which presents the argument as a hypothetical argument, goes like this: “A man accidentally gets a woman pregnant. He wants to keep the baby, but the woman does not. Should she be required to carry the baby to term to satisfy his desire?” Obviously, liberals argue that the answer is no; no woman should be forced to have a baby she does not want. The second part of the hypothetical goes like this: “A man accidentally gets a woman pregnant. He does not want her to keep the baby, but she does want to. Should he be forced to pay child support?” The answer to that question from a liberal perspective is obviously yes. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the glaring disconnect between the liberal sacrosanct dogma of a “woman’s right to choose” and the hypocritical absence of concern for the prospective father’s rights.
Dennis Prager recently made the point that abortion activists constantly refer to an unborn baby as a “fetus” or “fetal tissue”, and that this illustrates the shallowness and utter callousness of their moral argument. You take the exact same living creature, and if it wanted, it is called a baby; if it is not wanted, it is called a fetus. No one asks a pregnant woman, “how’s your fetus?” It’s an absurd, vacuous attempt to re-define the argument.
Worst of all is the deeply held (with nearly religious fervor) belief on the Left that abortion is not only a right, but a critically defining element of their political, ethical and ideological identity. While pro-life supporters have been ridiculed for claiming that pro-abortion forces believe that the right to abortion is more important than the life of an unborn child, stark proof exists:
“I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion,” DelBalzo declares. …
As DelBalzo writes, “And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, “Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!” has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights.”
“Safe and legal are concepts I fully support, but rare is something I cannot abide. I understand the theoretical mindset: it is better for a woman to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to bear the physical and financial burden of an abortion. While my own abortion involved very little pain and a minimal financial expense, one which my ex-boyfriend was willing to share with me, even I can admit that using condoms or the pill is preferable to eight weeks of nausea and weight gain,” she writes. “However, there is no need to suggest that abortion be rare. To say so implies a value judgement [sic], promoting the idea that abortion is somehow distasteful or immoral and should be avoided. Even with affordable, accessible birth control, there will be user errors, condoms that break, moments of spontaneity. The best contraceptive access in the world won’t change the fact that we are merely human and imperfect in our routines.”
The article, by Steven Ertelt, features the quote above from abortion activist Jessica DelBalzo, and puts to rest the argument that abortion supporters are working on behalf of women’s rights, not motivated by ensuring that abortions continue without restriction, without delay, without guilt, without apology, without remorse. The children be damned.