NRL News

A font of daft pro-abortion ideas spouts another one

by | Sep 1, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

Prof. Sherry Cobb

Over the years pro-abortion Prof. Sherry F. Colb has been a virtual font of daft ideas and analogies. We’ve talked about just a handful of her many zany notions in support of abortion on demand funded by (guess who?) you and me.

Now the Cornell University Law Professor has once again taken to the pages of Verdict, an article which was then reposted in Newsweek, to make this very revealing comparison.

Her woeful complain is that Texas now has a law, House Bill 214, similar to that of 25 other states, that she decidedly does not like. Here’s how Texas Right to Life explains HB 214, signed into law in mid-August by pro-life Gov. Greg Abbott. It

removes elective abortion coverage from the standard package of health insurance benefits provided under private and state employee plans, as well as public plans subsidized by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Abortions provided in the case of a medical emergency would still be covered under standard insurance plans, but separate, supplemental coverage for elective abortions would be an optional purchase.

Pro-Life Texans will

no longer involuntarily subsidizing the abortions of others through their premium and tax dollars. Texas will join the 25 other states that have already opted out of providing elective abortion coverage through their federally-mandated health benefit exchanges.

To Prof, Colb, this law is “imposing an undue burden on the exercise of the right to abortion, in violation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.”

Watch how she makes her case; it is quite chilling.

For purposes of brevity, I will address only two arguments.

#1. “Ordinarily, it would seem prudent, from a financial perspective, for a health insurance company that covers childbirth to also cover abortion within the same policy. This is because taking a pregnancy to term, which requires many months of prenatal care in addition to the costs of labor and delivery or a C-section, is actually much more expensive for the insurance company than a simple termination of the pregnancy.”

Get it? Lopping a kid’s head off and/or tearing little limbs from tiny torsos is so much cheaper than “bringing a pregnancy to term.”

#2. What about those who object to their tax dollars subsidizing the massacre of unborn children? The co-author of “Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights (Critical Perspectives on Animals: Theory, Culture, Science, and Law),” she’s glad you asked:

For people like me who oppose the exploitation and slaughter of animals, the government’s subsidies to people who farm animals (and to people who grow corn and soy specifically to feed those animals) force us to participate in evil at least as much as a Blue Cross-Blue Shield policy that covers abortions does with pro-life customers. Yet we cannot stop paying some portion of our taxes for that reason.

So, to animal rights advocate Colb, pro-lifers can’t object to siphoning off our taxes to subsidize the abortion industry so long as farmers receive subsidizes or tax breaks to grow food for animals that will be consumed. This is moral equivalency and an attack on human exceptionalism with a vengeance.

And, by the way, if somehow all subsidies to growers of corn and soy suddenly ended, does anyone think Prof. Colb would immediately respond, “I withdraw my objection to Texas [and 25 other states] opting out of providing elective abortion coverage through their federally-mandated health benefit exchanges”?

Of course not. It’s just a rhetorical gimmick .

You may remember how we dissected her criticism of Texas’ law banning dismemberment abortions.

Same abortion extremism times ten. Prof. Colb is nothing if not consistent–consistently wrong.

Categories: pro-abortion