"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired,” Virginia Governor Ralph Northam explained in a Washington D.C.-area radio interview. “And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
"[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable," CNN quickly chimed in, emphasizing the rest of Northam’s quote and trying to add mitigating context after furious backlash resulted in “infanticide” charges.
“Don’t worry — if we miss on the first try we'll certainly get them on the second, Dr. Mengele,” commentator and PR professional Scott Jennings responded in a USA Today editorial. Not mollified, the “pro-life” side questions why anyone tried to terminate a baby’s life in the first place.
It is one of the great, divisive issues of our time and we are not going to resolve it in a gun publication. Come to think of it, why bring it up here at all? We have our own great, divisive issue to champion.
Probably because Democrats like Northam, who make great political hay out of fighting for “a woman’s right to choose” draw the line at her (and everybody else’s) right to choose firearms as a means of protecting life.
“We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions,” Northam told WTOP about abortions. That’s obviously not true, because Northam’s Democrat predecessor vetoed a bill that would have blocked funding for Planned Parenthood. And Northam was the beneficiary of $3million of spending by the group to help elect him governor (before they called on him to resign because of “yearbook photos of [the governor] engaging in racist actions and language.”
Now compare his disavowal of government involvement there with what he wants to do with guns.
“Gov. Ralph Northam is making an aggressive push to revive gun safety proposals that GOP lawmakers killed in last year's General Assembly session,” The Virginia-Pilot editorialized. Note I did not say “reported” because the term “gun safety” in this case is masking code for “citizen disarmament.”
“Northam rolled out a package of bills ... that would require universal background checks for firearms purchases, ban assault weapons and resurrect the state's purchase limit of one handgun per month, among other proposals,” the piece explained.
This is yet another example of the truism that for “progressives” (and the quotation marks are there for a reason), every day is Opposite Day. The purpose of government is to protect “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It’s “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Where Founding documents mention arms, the mandate of government is equally clear. The right of the people to keep and bear them “shall not be infringed.”
OK, but isn’t the right not to be forced to carry an unwanted baby also a liberty issue? Do we want a state powerful enough to tell a woman what she must do with her body, and to enforce edicts that many see as theocratic? As I said, we are not going to resolve this here, but that should not prohibit us from examining some of the considerations that ought to (at least be) part of the discussion.
What about the baby’s body? Is there an obligation to protect its life? After all, there is no question, particularly emphasized in the late term, that it’s human, as opposed to just “a clump of cells.” It has all the chromosomes needed to identify it as a human life from the start and a sub-debate rages on how soon a fetus can feel pain.
But it can’t survive on its own, at least up to a point, some argue. Neither can someone dependent on intensive medical care for the basics, others counter. That’s when the euthanasia debate begins.
What is pretty much a truism is that all anti-gun Democrats are pro-abortion. What is not true is that all pro-gunners are pro-life.
I know of self-identified “conservatives” who will not challenge the abortion status quo for another reason: The eliminated populations are not coming from their ranks and will be more prone to dependency on, and therefore growth of, Democrat rule.
Then there’s the Libertarian Party, which says in its platform “We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.” On abortion, it says “[W]e believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
It is fair to ask how much of that conscientiousness is the result of informed consideration versus manipulation from “progressive” propagandists. We see the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asking, “Is it okay to still have children?” and tying it in with her “Green [Red] New Deal.” We see longtime genocide apologists at The New York Times (look up “Walter Duranty” if you question that characterization) asking, “Would human extinction be a tragedy?" and pondering if it “would make the world better off.”
That is a culture of death. Yet we see prominent cultural icons like English broadcaster and natural historian Sir David Attenborough getting major press to amplify his claim that “Humans are a plague on the Earth.” There are self-loathing environmental cases who advocate we merit eradication, like viruses.
Some of us will not go gentle into that good night, and we note the same creatures that consider us parasites support citizen disarmament.
We see useful idiot social justice warrior women pledging to go on “birthstrike” because they claim they are terrified of “climate change.” We see a bill pushed in California that would “require an abortionist’s phone number on student ID cards at every junior high, high school, and college campus ... including Christian- and Catholic-format schools and universities.”
We see women who have been radicalized dressing up in “Handmaid’s Tale” costumes and taking abortion pills – and we see such mass protests in more than one country. Years ago, I reported on an “artist” at Yale who said she impregnated herself and was going to put her self-induced miscarriages on display (until she claimed under pressure she was making a social statement and would not really do it).
We see that “that the current fertility rate in the U.S. is not high enough for the population to be able to replace itself.” We see the follow-up punch that “The U.S. isn't fertile enough to sustain itself without immigrants.”
And we see the resulting changing demographics are the greatest threat to gun owner rights, since real world experience (think “California”) and all credible polls tell us that migrants gaining citizenship overwhelmingly vote Democrat and anti-gun. Unfortunately, the numbers don’t get any better after decades of “assimilation.” The unchecked “pathway to citizenship” will result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass anti-gun edicts and confirm judges who will uphold them.
Yes, the issue comes back to guns. Watch.
“Men Cause 100% of Unwanted Pregnancies,” self-titled “Design Mom” Gabrielle Blair asserts. “Our conversation about abortion places the burden of responsibility on women. I argue men are the root cause.”
That it takes two to tango doesn’t enter into Blair recognizing a right to a “No” vote on the decision to abort. Then she shows us what she thinks about our right to choose with another piece, titled “It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.”
“As dramatic as it sounds, I don’t know if a ban can be stopped at this point,” she opines. Evidently she thinks Mr. and Mrs. America are going to obey Dianne Feinstein and turn them all in.
That order will include women, now the fastest-growing gun owner demographic, who will have their choice taken away from them by controllers with designs on more than their bodies.
Discouraging women from exploring their options and claiming their right is starting to lose its effect with an awakening segment.
“Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton advocated when protesting NRA’s “Refuse to be a Victim” program. “It should stay that way.”
Imagine if a man had said that.
We have seen over the years even more ridiculous and offensive discouragements, like the Illinois State Police advising women to vomit on attackers or ward them off with rat-tail combs. That morphed into propaganda to try to convince women a gun in the home is the greater danger, relying on twin lies: That the experiences of women living in abusive criminal environments are applicable to all, and that you need to kill an attacker for a Defensive Gun Use to count.
Then there’s a third lie, that if a woman defends herself with a gun, a man will take it away and use it against her. Best to give him what he wants (even if what he wants is her).
When propaganda efforts to manipulate women’s choices don’t work, stronger methods must be used. That is where citizen disarmament edicts, taking everyone’s choices away, come into play.
As admitted early on, we’re not going to resolve the abortion issue here. The best we can hope for is that responsible citizens will conduct themselves accordingly. That means making responsible choices and not requiring anyone else, especially the most vulnerable among us, to pay the ultimate price for their decisions.
I do have a thought experiment I would like to end this on, kind of a test of “progressive” consistency, oxymoron though that term may be.
“Two gene variants have been found to be more common in gay men, adding to mounting evidence that sexual orientation is at least partly biologically determined,” New Scientist reported. Say a woman did not want to give birth to such a child and used that as justification to exercise her “choice.”
Do you think there might be those on the left who would consider that a “hate crime” meriting state intervention and punishment for defying their prohibitions?