By Judie Brown
No, this column is not about Elvis Presley, whose last name had but one S in it; it is about the pro-abortion fanatic congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, whose double S last name reminds me of the hissing of a snake. In fact, Pressley could be called the serpentine queen of abortion. She makes news as part of the “Squad”—a group of four congresswomen who are very pro-abortion. But her membership in the “Squad” is not why we are bringing her to your attention. Oh no, Pressley has distinguished herself as a pro-abortion politician in her own right. In fact, she is extremely committed to protecting the deadly act.
Pressley recently issued a press release touting The Abortion Justice Act—an unnumbered legislative proposal that states in its findings that “abortion care is essential health care that should be affordable, available, and supported for everyone who needs it.” This is a radical response to the June 24, 2022, Supreme Court Dobbs decision regarding the Mississippi law that allegedly bans abortion. While this decision on a flawed law upholds Mississippi legislation that protects some babies from abortion, the proposal being floated by Pressley would enshrine abortion in congressional law.
Pressley’s statement outlines what the AJA proposal would do. She writes that it:
- Calls for necessary federal investments in abortion care, including training, research, outreach, doula care, and innovation;
- Requires insurance coverage include abortion care;
- Protects patients and providers from criminalization;
- Affirms a legal right to abortion and miscarriage care;
- Removes systemic barriers to care including for immigrant families; and
- Addresses disparities and systemic racism in the healthcare system.
One could pen a book in response to these outrageous claims, but for the purposes of this article, let’s just examine the bare bones problems that The Abortion Justice Act creates.
We know that abortion is a deadly act. This begs the questions Why is research needed to train human beings on how to kill other people? What in the world could be innovative about that practice? We really just want to respond with the logical answer: Don’t kill people in the first place.
The proposal also requires insurance coverage that includes this killing and the aftermath it creates. While we certainly do not believe that any woman should suffer after a necessary surgery, abortion is not necessary. In fact, abortion automatically creates two victims: the mother and her baby. But note that no concern is stated regarding the victim who dies, only the mother wounded by her deadly choice.
And while we see the fear present in Pressley’s concern that someone could be charged with a crime if abortion were ever outlawed, the simple truth is that every abortion is a crime against humanity and the laws of God. We all know what that punishment can be if those involved do not sincerely repent.
The question of coupling the tragic consequences of miscarriage with the intentional death caused by abortion shows how desperate Pressley is in this proposal. When a lawmaker must combine a true maternal tragedy with an expectant mother’s choice to kill her child, something dreadful is afoot. Obviously Pressley prefers deception to the full-on attack on preborn babies that her proposed legislation represents.
Finally, the use of terms such as “systemic barriers,” “disparities,” “systemic racism,” and other such political hot button words frost this deadly cake with the sort of bitterness we have come to expect from those who embrace abortion while rejecting compassion and unselfish love for the less fortunate—born and preborn.
The great sadness of a failed immigration policy is one thing, but the wholesale advocacy of murdering innocents as some sort of wicked social policy is something else entirely. Pressley’s proposal lacks genuine justice because it is based on the lie that abortion is a legitimate choice.