Feminists of a certain ilk have a propensity to deny the obvious. They do this consistently when it comes to pregnancy. They are ever hesitant to use the word "mother" lest the reader/listener get the idea that there could be a child involved in the discussion as well. That has been my experience over these past many years.
Most recently, this came to my attention again because of a proposal in the Missouri legislature. The legislative bill in question is driving these women mad.
House Bill 46 stipulates that
Abortions cannot be performed or induced without the voluntary, informed and un-coerced consent of the woman at least 24 hours prior to the abortion.
Further, the bill requires that printed or video materials detailing the physiological development of the mother's preborn child be given to her in addition to giving the mother the opportunity to view the ultrasounds of her baby prior to aborting her child. The bill also requires that abortionists provide the expectant mother with a list of agencies that would help her carry her child to term.
This bill is actually one of those pieces of legislation that means well, but at the end of the day, sends the message that after all the information provided and the 24-hour waiting period, the expectant mother can still kill her child if she wishes. In all honesty, that is what the bill permits, but ask any abortion-minded public servant about it and you are going to get an earful of poppycock.
Ilene Ordower is a former Missouri state lawmaker, and she coauthored an editorial on this legislative measure with Lynn Paltrow, currently the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
In their commentary, these women opine in a manner that is rather insulting to every mother in America. Specifically they write
Concern for a woman's right to informed consent before an abortion is commendable. But the fact that the bills protect only the interests of women who plan to end their pregnancies raises serious questions about legislative commitment to the pregnant women who intend to have their babies. Missouri law already requires informed consent for an abortion, but it doesn't require the same for full-term pregnancy procedures.
Now you might be thinking that these writers are clearly concerned about all expectant mothers and merely want the law to reflect equality for these mothers at every stage of their baby's gestational development right up to and including birth. You might even applaud their concerns for equality. But wait a minute.
We learn at the very end that the writers are not only concerned about the lack of informed consent for mothers who carry their children to term but they have no problem at all with those mothers who wish to abort their children. They conclude
Rather than passing another law designed to make it harder for pregnant women to gain access to abortion services, Missouri could demonstrate a real commitment to pregnant women by ensuring that all of them, including those going to term, are guaranteed informed consent.
The fact is that Ordower and Paltrow appear to be neither here nor there on abortion per se, but want all "pregnant women" to have equal treatment regardless of the decision each makes to keep or kill her child. This is why the paragraph that closes that commentary does not read like this:
Rather than passing another law designed to make it harder for expectant mothers to gain access to procedures that will kill their babies, Missouri could demonstrate a real commitment to expectant mothers by ensuring that all of them, including those going to term, are guaranteed informed consent.
Now that puts the commentary in a totally different light, right? But the real question is this: Are Ordower and Paltrow neutral when it comes to abortion? The answer is no, they are not.
I took a cursory look at Paltrow's organizational web site, and lo and behold the following defense of infamous abortionist George "the killer" Tiller is on her blog:
For a long time I have been troubled by an interview posted on YouTube with one, Dr. Paul McHugh, a psychiatrist hired by the state of Kansas to go after George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who provides much needed abortion services. Families, many of whom would describe themselves as pro-life, go to his clinic for help from all over the United States. Dr. McHugh was hired as part of an effort to prevent Dr. Tiller from providing these services. In the interview, Dr. McHugh claims that there is never ever, even possibly a psychological need for an abortion.
Please note her use of words designed to create sympathy for Tiller, whom she characterizes as being persecuted for performing a good deed! My, oh my.
No, I don't think Ordower and Paltrow are ambivalent about abortion at all. Obviously, the hypocritical reason behind the St. Louis Today editorial is to convince those Missourians who read it that the writers are defending all expectant mothers. What a sham!
Once again, abortion-supporting feminists are slogging along, doing all they can to insult Americans by words of deceit. Those of us who truly believe in the sanctity of life are not that dumb! We know that when Mother's Day rolls around three days from now, we will celebrate our own mothers, and our grandmothers, as our children celebrate us. In addition, we will all have to take a moment to mourn for those mothers who chose to kill their children and now suffer spiritually, emotionally and physically.
The bottom line is best written not by this grandmother of ten, but by Paltrow herself who opines on the subject of proposed legislation that would recognize equal rights, human rights and civil rights for all human beings, born and preborn:
What supporters of this approach don't mention is that if the unborn have legal personhood rights, pregnant women won't. [emphasis added]
What nonsense!
