NRL News

Why is it pro-aborts never keep their promises to leave when pro-lifers win?

by | Feb 17, 2021

By Dave Andrusko

Every four years, a flock of pro-abortion celebrities vow if the pro-life candidate wins the presidency, they’re out of here. To Canada, Spain, Africa, even Jupiter (Cher).

But, drat, even when the pro-lifer wins, the pro-abortion Hollywood crowd hangs around, nuisances 24/7.

Naturally, I thought of the celebs who never keep their promise when “three supporters of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa” wrote a guest column for The Gazette under the headline, “We won’t go back to an Iowa without safe, legal abortion.”

So, what drew their wrath? After all, Iowa is a very pro-life state which has passed protective legislation for some time now.

The first sentence of the column by Barb Madden Bittle, Karen Herwig and Jean Swenson  reads, “Last week, anti-abortion politicians in the Iowa Senate advanced the constitutional amendment that will strip Iowans of their right to safe and legal abortion.” The rest of the paragraph could have written itself: “The right to safe and legal abortion in Iowa is under attack, and anti-abortion politicians are working quickly to rig the rules so they can ban abortion.”

Let’s take a few minutes out, take a chill pill for them, and be more accurate.

#1. When, using the cover of the alleged imminent repeal of Roe v. Wade (who knew?) New Mexico Democrats –following the example of states such as Massachusetts, Illinois, Vermont, etc.–are about to pass legislation legalizing abortion on demand throughout pregnancy, did they “rig the rules”?

No. They’d won control of both houses of the legislature and elected a fellow pro-abortion Democrat governor. They can pretty much do what they want.

In another sense, of course, they did rig the setting. They enveloped their radicalism in gauzy platitudes about how the bill “really is saying that we trust New Mexicans to make these decisions for themselves” or “because we need to leave individual health care decisions to a woman and her doctor.”

Yada, yada, yada.

#2. Then there’s the drenched-in-hyperbole allegation that “the constitutional amendment … will strip Iowans of their right to safe and legal abortion.” What would the constitutional amendment actually do?

Joint Resolution 2/HJR5  would effective negate a 2018 decision by the state’s Supreme Court that discovered—voila—there is a previously unbeknownst “right to abortion” provision in the state constitution. 

As a consequence of the decision, all pro-life legislation is up for grabs, such as the state’s  72-hour waiting period for abortion which the court gutted three years ago on the grounds that “a woman’s right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution.” 

In other words, far from “rigging the rules”—that was the Iowa Supreme Court’s doing—or  “strip[ping] Iowans of their right to safe and legal abortion,” the constitutional amendment would do nothing more than level the playing field. It would allow the citizens of Iowa to decide if abortion is a “fundamental right” or something five justices of the state Supreme Court conjured up.

Justice  Edward Mansfield, one of two dissenters to the 2018 decision, offered a particularly powerful critique , both for what it said about the attitude of the writer of the majority opinion and the history of abortion in Iowa. 

Referring to the 1992 Casey Supreme Court decision, Justice Mansfield wrote

Unfortunately, the majority opinion lacks this sense of balance and perspective. Forgoing accepted methods of constitutional interpretation, the opinion instead relies at times on an undertone of moral criticism toward abortion opponents. From reading the majority opinion, one would barely know that abortion—with few exceptions—was continuously illegal in Iowa from the time our constitution was adopted until the United Supreme Court overrode our law by deciding Roe v. Wade. From reading the majority opinion, one would scarcely be aware that many women in Iowa are prolife and strongly support the same law the court concludes unconstitutionally discriminates against them.

Categories: pro-abortion