NRL News

The potential of debates over dismemberment abortion to transform the abortion controversy

by | Apr 20, 2016

By Dave Andrusko

deabortion3Not surprisingly, many people commented on a couple of recent posts we ran about pro-abortion Hillary Clinton. You may recall that in the run up debate with pro-abortion Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders prior to Tuesday’s New York presidential primary, Mrs. Clinton huffed and puffed about not being asked enough about “reproductive health” in the eight previous debates.

She said two things of interest. One is the aforementioned not having “one question” asked “about a woman’s right to make her own decisions about reproductive health care.” She coupled that with a criticism of Donald Trump’s since-repudiated comment that, if abortion was made illegal, women who abort should be “punished.”

The other was, “It goes to the heart of who we are as women, our rights, our autonomy, our ability to make our own decisions, and we need to be talking about that and defending Planned Parenthood from these outrageous attacks.”

I thought of those comments–and many other ludicrous harrumphs—when I read the pro-abortion responses to Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant last week when he signed HB 519, The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. [1]

It is as if they were reading off the same script which, of course, they were. “ This bill is not based in medicine,” charged Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “Governor Bryant just signed a clear attack on women’s health care as part of a plan to ban abortion across the board. Planned Parenthood will continue to fight to protect the rights of our patients and their access to safe medical care, no matter what.”

Likewise, groused Felicia Brown-Williams, the director of public policy for Planned Parenthood Southeast, “Let’s be clear that the true intent of this legislation is not to protect women.”

She added, “Instead, HB 519 is designed to prohibit Mississippi women from exercising their legal right to essential health care. This is yet another attempt to chip away at women’s access to safe and legal abortion.”

So, everything from refusing to allow your tax dollars to fund abortions, to acknowledging that parents ought to have a voice in their adolescent’s decision whether to abort, to saying it is beyond barbaric to rip unborn babies apart, limb from limb, is (a) “part of a plan to ban abortion across the board” and/or (b) “preventing women from exercising their legal right to essential health care.”

I suspect even Laguens doesn’t really believe that nonsense but it’s part of the grand pro-abortion narrative: you pull one thread and the whole ball of yarn unravels.

As for Brown-Williams, it was like she was channeling the former Secretary of State. “Essential health care” and Clinton’s “reproductive health care” are interchangeable (albeit usually unacknowledged] synonyms for the use of steel tools to tear apart a well-developed unborn child by brute force.

But I understand why euphemism and bogus outrage is standard fare for Clinton and her ilk.

“When the national abortion debate focuses only on the mother, it is forgetting someone,” Mary Spaulding Balch, JD, National Right to Life’s director of state legislation, has said many time. “When people realize that living unborn children are being killed by being torn limb from limb, it has the potential to transform the debate.”

[1] Tip of the hat to Breitbart News [].

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at

Categories: Abortion Politics