NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Pro-abortionists should consider the alternative

by | Sep 28, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

In the newspaper business, the paragraph containing the gist of a story is called the “nut graf,” why,  I haven’t a clue. Well the gist of “Laws Revive ‘World Before Roe’ as Abortions Require Arduous Trek” is four paragraphs in:

“Over the past two years, state lawmakers across the U.S. have been passing new abortion restrictions at a record pace. Dozens of laws stipulating who can perform abortions, how abortion pills can be administered, tighter building standards for abortion clinics and what women need to do before abortions have been enacted — helping create a patchwork of access to the procedure that the U.S. Supreme Court deemed a constitutional right almost 40 years ago.”

This is the last NRL News Today story of the week, so rather than go into a detailed rebuttal, let me just say a couple of words.

#1. How about all 50 states pass similar laws—all of which are commonsensical? Then there wouldn’t be a “patchwork” of laws.

#2. ANY restriction is reason enough to invoke the “bad old days” before Roe v. Wade opened the floodgates to the deaths of 55 million unborn babies.

#3. Is it really  unreasonable to stipulate who can abort women? To require minimal standards so we can avoid a repeat of the likes of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, whose trial on eight counts of murder comes up next year? To insist that the abortionist actually be in the same room as the woman ingesting powerful abortifacients, should there be complications? To slow the rush to lethal judgment to give women a day or two to consider what they are about to do and to whom?

I say we shoot for #1, then maybe pro-abortionists can find something else to lament.

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha

Categories: pro-abortion