Good for the goose, part XXIII

Good for the goose, part XXIII

The Boston Globe editorializes today on the Roe v. Wade anniversary. It’s the typical liberal apology for abortion while warning of the pro-life bogeymen wanting to return us to the days of coat-hanger abortions. Some of the lines deserve special attention.

    President Bush has nominated dozens of lower-court justices who oppose Roe and see the courts as a tool for their activism.

Activism? Liberal judges have been activists on the bench for decades. And the original Roe decision was itself a case of judicial activism, based on judicial activism. The so-called right to privacy exists nowhere in the US Constitution and was manufactured by the Court. In the same way, the Court has manufactured a mythical separation of church and state, something that is also not found in the Constitution.

    Antiabortion fanatics are driving doctors who perform abortions out of the business through harassment, intimidation, even murder.

That’s right, ad hominem attacks. Paint every pro-lifer—including the grannies kneeling in the snow in front of abortion clinics every week—as a murderous fanatic. And ignore all the cases or pro-abortion violence that the newspaper ignores the rest of the year anyway.

    Fourteen states allow insurance companies or employers to deny legal abortion coverage in their health plans.

You mean they give businesses the freedom to act according to certain moral principles? Horrors!

    An insidious new movement aimed at conferring personhood upon fertilized eggs is gaining steam - it is the same ideology behind restrictions on medical research involving stem cells.

“Insidious”! Notice how they play with semantics. What species is the fertilized egg? Why, human, of course! And what is a fertilized egg? A developing human being with a unique genetic code which even pro-abortion forces define as pre-viable human life.

    Last year Bush changed the rules regarding the Children’s Health Insurance Plan to make ‘‘unborn children’’ - not pregnant women - eligible for public health care.

Um, how does that work? “Ma’am, I would give you folic acid during your pregnancy, but it would benefit you as well as the child, and you’re not covered.” It’s coverage for pregnant women and their children. It recognizes a pregnant woman as carrying a human being, not a tumorous mass.

It’s the same old liberal word games that ignore the realities, try to reshape public opinion with half-truths, and claim to be supporting the cause of life while advocating death.

If only everything they warned against in the editorial were close to being true. Then the editorial would really make me feel like the pro-life movement is actually getting somewhere.