Excerpts from “America’s Science-Denying Antiquated Abortion Law” dated January 19, 2017
The American government has worked pretty well for the last two hundred and forty years. We fought World War II in Europe and Asia—and won. We put a man on the moon. We saw a peaceful end to the Cold War. We invented the Internet, Social Media, Amazon, etc., etc.
But despite tremendous advancements in science/technology and medicine, we woefully lag behind the rest of the developed world in one very important area: our abortion laws. The abortion laws in the United States are so outdated that only five other nations ON EARTH agree with our position (and one of those nations happens to be North Korea).
When polled, CNN reports 56% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances, and 7 in 10 Americans think abortion should be illegal in at least some circumstances. Yet, every attempt to change this policy has failed.
The law/policy referenced is America’s allowing elective abortions twenty-weeks post-fertilization. Science has demonstrated that children can feel the pain of being aborted at that age and, due to the wonderful advancements of neo-natal medicine, a child can survive outside the womb as young as twenty weeks post-fertilization.
Yet our government fails to take action. Why? Special interests groups like NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the Guttmacher Institute have hijacked the conversation. These organizations have referred to attempts to change this policy as “dangerous,” a threat to the “health and wellbeing”of women, and part of a dangerous “anti-choice” political fringe.
The liberal developed nations of Denmark, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France recognize that a twenty-week-old baby is just that –a baby –not a random assortment of cells.
Laws dealing with medicine and life issues should reflect the latest medical knowledge, not forty-year old talking points disseminated by special interest groups labeling themselves as “experts.”
This makes no sense at all, other than the excuse that life issues are used for political expediency. The next time someone on TV says that protecting the rights of women requires agreeing with the laws of North Korea, we need to remember the facts over politics.