Pro-choice is NOT what you think it is anymore

© 2020 Jim Spence - The impeachment scam is such a farce, it is time to switch gears. Based on the headline, the topic of this column might make readers mutter and wonder what is the point. The point is stepping up to help the helpless, a value that one would think would be dear to every "compassionate" Democrat's heart.

NOPE

When you hear political chatter on news reports, or in pop culture media specials regarding those who attend pro-life rallies, neither the right to “choose” nor the right to “life” means anything close to what these phrases used to mean. Admittedly, only a minority of citizens seem to care much for columns that discuss the abortion debate. Accordingly, we proceed. It is probably time to post a column here that is simply a way of helping "compassionate" people understand what has happened with the abortion issue since the Roe vs. Wade ruling thirty-seven years ago. So......if you are still reading, it will be worthwhile.
Prior to the Roe vs. Wade decision, the Supreme Court justices discussed not just the intricacies of abortion rights, but also sensible abortion limits all reasonable people could agree to. According to Wikipedia, in January 1973 the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
However, the Supreme Court also ruled that this “right” was NOT unlimited. The court found the right to have an abortion must be balanced with three important principles: 1) the government's interests in protecting women's right to privacy, 2) a woman's health, and 3) the life of viable children. 
The Supreme Court ruling attempted to resolve this balancing challenge by tying state regulations of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy. The court held that:
1) during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all;
2) during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations;
3) during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.
Let's stop here. This was where REASONABLE thinkers came together on a compromise. This is not an endorsement of the ruling, instead it is a process of pointing out that the court was trying to MEET ALL THE INTERESTED PARTIES half way.
Understand this.....For decades the feminists/Democrats who hailed the Roe vs. Wade ruling, vowed to protect the nature of the ruling spelled out above.....against what they claimed were Republican efforts to overturn the ruling. However, over time it became very clear that even when the GOP had control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and a majority on the Supreme Court, there was no desire to overturn the essence of Roe decision.
At this point this issue became a political manipulation exercise designed to leave defenseless but viable babies subject to insanely crass gyrations designed to legalize murder. Of course, Democrats have continued to find it politically necessary to also accuse the GOP of wanting to overturn Roe, as a way of fundraising and hanging on to a huge majority of the radical feminist vote.
Times have changed. People who were saying they supported a woman’s "right to choose" 48 years ago, must now go along with unprincipled stances that bear ZERO resemblance to supporting a woman's right to choose. What Democrats are calling for today represents astonishing changes to Roe vs. Wade.
Democrats now demand that being pro-choice no longer will be the simple support for the rights of women, who wind up inconveniently pregnant, to have the “choice” to schedule an abortion early in the pregnancy.
These days in many states, radical feminists, along with their extremist friends among Democratic Party elected officials, are attempting to legalize the killing of babies at any stage of development, including those who are actually born alive.
Sorry friends, this is not an affirmation of Roe vs. Wade. Instead, it is a macabre effort to redefine the term, “the right to choose” to mean, “the right to kill innocent viable babies because the mother forgot to terminate the pregnancy until the baby could survive on its own.” That is not pregnancy termination, it is baby killing. 
There is a saying about people who want to have the same authority over others as God. Give them a little legal leeway and they will try to extrapolate that concession into the right to kill other human beings. We are there.
Every single candidate in the Democrat’s presidential primary is just fine with attempting to legalize the butchering of viable children in the third trimester of development in a pregnancy. This is nothing short of changing the advocating of "choice early in a pregnancy," into condoning the murdering of viable babies in the late stages of a pregnancy. There is no other way to characterize this.
Don’t fall for the exception con. There are plenty of legal protections in the Roe ruling for situations where the life of the mother is threatened. Radical Democrats and feminists know this is already a legal reality. Incredibly, though Democrats still call this process "choice," they actually want the right to kill. This is political manipulation to retain the baby butcher vote. Astonishingly, elected Democrats seem willing to look the other way while the term "pro-choice" is redefined as including, "a woman's right to kill." Don't be fooled. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, and nobody should ever be successful in convincing a decent human being this is a "right."
Share/Bookmark