Responding to the fallacious “Women’s Health Protection Act” rhetoric

BREAKING: Soon, Congressional Democrats plan to introduce the the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013.

This is a critically important piece of legislation that will take the offensive against extreme social conservatives who want to curb a woman’s right to make her OWN choices about her OWN body.

As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, this ignores the body of the unborn human being who gets crushed and dismembered during the abortion — just because she was unwanted. What about her rights?

And their offensive isn’t against extremists, it is against a significant majority of people opposed to late-term abortions.

And these same people aggressively fight to restrict your choices about guns, schools, food, healthcare, whether to fund abortions, etc.  And they don’t want medical workers to have a choice whether or not to participate in abortions.  

The new bill would prohibit states from passing laws that create financial, logistical, and emotional barriers to women seeking reproductive health services.

Stop. Right. There.  Never let them use the deadly euphemism of “reproductive health.”  It is a scientific fact — and basic common sense — that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization (check out any mainstream embryology textbook).  So abortions kill human beings who have already been reproduced.

Some of these attempts include forcing women to undergo unnecessary medical procedures before having an abortion, such as forcefully inserting vaginal probes and requiring an ultrasound.

Are they trying to outlaw other procedures requiring ultrasounds?  If not, why not?  Don’t those help make the procedure more safe?  And if the probes are “forcefully inserted” then aren’t the tools for the abortions forcefully inserted in the same place?

PLEASE, take a moment and call your Senators and Representatives and urge them to support this critical legislation!! Then, SHARE this story with a friend and have them call too.

Find your members of Congress here: http://whoismyrepresentative.com/

Yes, please contact them to save innocent human beings from being destroyed!

abort

The original link was from a Hillary Clinton Facebook page quoting her about the deceptive “safe, legal and rare” mantra. Hillary doesn’t want abortions to be rare. She thinks there aren’t enough of them, which is why she supports the Democrats’ platform of taxpayer-funded abortions: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

That’s pro-abortion, not pro-choice.

Hat tip: Marcia from Facebook

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Responding to the fallacious “Women’s Health Protection Act” rhetoric”

  1. Setting aside the impact to the unborn child, Gosnell’s “women’s healthcare” clinic caused more harm to women then any ultrasound. And don’t forget Planned parenthood’s support of pimps forcing their prostitutes to have abortions so they can keep on “working” as well as violating disclosure laws. Far from protecting women’s health, abortion advocates have a proven track record of their willingness to sacrifice the health of women for the greater good.Funny they want to pass a new law when they currently keep breaking so many existing laws.

    Like

  2. The main reason these people don’t want an ultrasound to take place is because the ultrasound technician will say something to the order of “it’s a girl!” and it suddenly gets very real to the mother and the abortion clinic is suddenly out $500+

    Like

    1. Doug, that would work for later abortions, but since most are done before the sex can be determined by u/s, that’s not the reason. However, I do think that often when a mother sees the image on the u/s screen, it does become more real to her — esp. if they can see what looks human, even as small and unformed as it is at 6-8 weeks gestation (4-6 weeks post-conception) — esp. the heartbeat. Most abortion clinics just turn the screen away from the mother so she can’t see it, but if they were really pro-*choice*, they would let her see, and even encourage her to see, so that she could be sure of her choice. IMO, it’s not “informed consent” if information is withheld that would have changed the person’s mind, whether for an abortion or a heart surgery or cancer treatment.

      Still, the standard of care — based on Planned Parenthood and other abortion organizations — is for an u/s to be done before and during any abortion procedure. U/s are done before abortion to make sure that the woman is indeed pregnant (and not ectopic), and to gauge the size of the baby (bigger babies = more money). If a woman is in early pregnancy, a trans-abdominal u/s won’t show clearly enough, so again, the standard of care is a vaginal u/s. Also, u/s during abortion is the standard of care, to make sure the abortionist is getting the baby and all the baby, and not leaving anything behind; I’m pretty sure it also helps to minimize the damage to the mother — perforated uterus, etc.

      So, for abortion advocates to squawk about govt regulations on abortion is hypocritical, since all abortions are done using u/s, with most using vaginal u/s (what abortion advocates call “instrumental rape” if it’s mandated by the govt, but not when done as standard of care — see the hypocrisy?), unless the abortionist is being careless and putting the mother at greater risk.

      Like

  3. It’s a Woman’s Body!

    Such statements suggest that bodily autonomy is absolute – which we know is not the case. You don’t have the right to commit suicide, consume illegal drugs, sell organs for profit, or prostitute yourself. These prohibitions alone prove that bodily autonomy is not absolute! Nor should it be in any society wishing to remain civilized.

    The fetus is not a human being until [enter arbitrary line.]

    The immediate problem is the plain reality that humanity is not achieved; it is an innate quality. You cannot set arbitrary requisites for an innate quality. But more than that, why the hell would you want to? Some say “it’s” not a person until it has a nervous system; others say “it’s” not a person until “it’s” born; and still others say “it’s” not a person until it can contribute to its own survival in some way. The latter has been used to justify infanticide. . The problem is that someone could come up with an arbitrary requisite to preclude more than half the world, and what would be the philosophical objection if not the sheer asininity of arbitrary definitions to begin with?

    The whole anti-life philosophy is flawed.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s