NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

House Speaker Boehner: H.R. 36 is “the most pro-life legislation to ever come before this body”

May 14, 2015

 

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-life House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)

Pro-life House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)

On Wednesday House Speaker John Boehner called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act “the most pro-life legislation to ever come before this body,” adding, “And it reflects the will of the American people.”

You can watch Speaker Boehner’s powerful remarks on Youtube. I encourage you to do so. He ends with this:

My colleagues, growing up with 11 brothers and sisters, I didn’t need my parents to tell me that every child is a gift from God. But let me tell you, they did – early and often. Because that respect – that sanctity and dignity – is everything. A vote for this bill is a vote to protect innocent lives and protect our dearest values for generations to come. We should all be proud to take this stand today.

But in an editorial in today’s New York Times, we are told (lectured, actually) of the “bogus arguments” made for H.R. 36.

While Speaker Boehner spoke about there being “no higher obligation than to speak out for those who can’t speak for themselves – to defend the defenseless,” the Times sees no obligations higher than parroting the pro-abortion party line. Indeed, to the august Times editorial board, no one should be proud of a bill that would ban aborting unborn children capable of experiencing horrific pain. Why so?

For one reason, because it’s all made up. Referring to the scientific evidence and congressional findings that the unborn can experience pain by the 20th week fetal age, the Times opines that, to the contrary, “medical evidence does not support this.” Period, end of declarative sentence.

Having established that to its own satisfaction, the editorial goes on to state, “Of course, the bill is not really about scientific findings of any sort. It is simply another attempt by conservative Republicans to undercut women’s constitutionally protected reproductive rights.”

Let me offer two thoughts. First, if this bill protected viable unborn babies from being mostly delivered and then having surgical scissors jammed into their skulls and their brains vacuumed out, they’d probably oppose that, too.

Wait a minute, come to think of it, they already have. The Times opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion.

Second, there is this snarky little comment about a different version of the bill passing the House 2013, “but it never received a vote in the Senate.” Guess who stopped that cold in its tracks? Then Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.)

Finally, in that wonderfully convenient way the Times has of mentioning important considerations only to miss their significance, the editorial drops this and moves on: “The measure gained momentum after The New England Journal of Medicine published a study indicating that a tiny number of babies born at 22 weeks [actually 23%] can survive if given intensive medical treatment.”

I don’t know if 23% is “tiny,” but is 33%? That’s the percentage of babies born at 23 weeks who survive if treated “actively.” What about 24 weeks and up?

The point–which somehow eludes the Times’ editorial board– is that all of these babies are pain-capable and all can be aborted.

Is that the message the Times and its kindred pro-abortion spirits want out? Obviously not, which is why it so “bogus” when they talk about the “bogus” justifications for H.R. 36.

Categories: Legislation