Wednesday, April 8, 2020

Democrats Ramping Up Their War On Babies

                Democrats have recently ramped up their war on babies, fighting on many fronts. On February 25th, Senate Democrats filibustered a bill called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would have banned abortion after 20 weeks. (Though some babies can survive outside the womb after five months, and one would think that amount of time would be sufficient to decide if one wants to keep the baby, why do today what could be put off until tomorrow, right?)
                Senate Democrats also recently voted to block legislation that would have required that medical care be provided to babies who survive abortion procedures. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act did not receive the 60 votes necessary to advance out of the Senate. The final tally was 56 for, 41 against, with every single vote against the bill cast by Democrats. Hell yeah, even if the baby is alive and kicking after an attempted abortion, let’s just leave them on a table somewhere to die. Because, at that point, we can’t decapitate them or shoot them, sadly. Nice party you’ve got there, Dems-- full of loving, tolerant, folks who care so deeply about the marginalized, the downtrodden, the challenged, the little guy.
                What’s more, the American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a lawsuit against seven East Texas towns that had the audacity to declare themselves “sanctuary cities” for unborn children. The ACLU brought the suit on behalf of two pro-abortion groups, the Lilith Fund and the Texas Equal Access Fund (TEA Fund), saying that their rights to free expression and association are violated by the pro-life ordinances. Say what?! Abortion is “free expression?” Why not term it “performance art?” These group’ rights to “free expression” supersede the baby’s right to life? And “free association” is not a term I usually associate with the removal of a “fetus” from a womb. Nor did the Founders. Perhaps we need to rethink the Holocaust. Maybe it was just the Nazi’s preferred way of “freely associating.”
                Mark Dickson, the director of Right to Life East Texas, derided the ACLU’s complaint via a Facebook post, calling it "a meritless lawsuit brought to deter and intimidate cities from enacting these ordinances, which are entirely constitutional and consistent with the laws of Texas." He added, "We have a legal team ready to defend these ordinances at no charge to the cities, and we are prepared to defend all other cities that enact these laws at no charge to the taxpayers."
   Apparently, progressives believe only criminals and non-residents deserve “sanctuaries,” not innocent unborn babies in the womb. It is ghoulishly ironic that the ACLU will sue to prevent states from establishing sanctuary cities for babies while simultaneously holding the view that states have every right to disregard federal law and provide sanctuary cities for illegal aliens.

No comments:

Post a Comment