Further thoughts on deceptively titled “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013”

Senator Richard Blumenthal

Hopefully by now you have heard of the misleading and deceptively titled “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013.” My piece from November 19 goes through several points straight from the bill itself to show just how extreme it is.

I’ll admit that as I am still registered to vote in New York, I likely won’t be contacting Representative Timothy Bishop, and the same goes for Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. All three have pro-abortion voting records, and unfortunately I don’t have much faith in my home state with its history and current state of abortion laws.

If you do live in a state where your senators are pro-life or are at least more open to the position, it is worth contacting them to inform. Encourage them not only to oppose this extreme bill, but to speak out to educate their colleagues and the nation. The same goes for your representative.


Senator Richard Blumenthal.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) has acknowledged that this bill is unlikely to pass, as it would have to get through the Republican-controlled House. It is still necessary to oppose him and his pro-abortion allies, though, for they are just as much in this fight as we are, if not more so now after being on defense, and they don’t plan on giving up in. As the Journal Sentinel reports:

Blumenthal conceded victory may not be in the current Congress but predicted candidates running for office next year will have to announce their position on the bill.

“We will win this fight,” he said.

If the bill were to somehow pass in 2013, or at any time when Barack Obama still controlled the presidency, it is likely that Obama would sign it. Perhaps the president will even come out in support of the bill. And we cannot know what position the next president will hold. Also, pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood are proclaiming this bill to be going on offense.

Those who oppose us have not forgotten pro-life laws and have sought to undo them in the Courts, with claims that such are not medically accurate or scientifically based. Such progress has helped to show that America is indeed pro-life as states pass laws protecting women and children. It is thus important not only to stand for the unborn and their mothers, but to protect the rights of those states fighting to do so.

In Heidi Miller’s post “Arizona appeals to Supreme Court on law limiting taxpayer funding of abortion,” it is noted that “the Supreme Court found in Harris v. McRae that abortion is “inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.” Now that I am aware of this case, I ask once again, with more fervor: what does the “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013” regard to be a “medically comparable” procedure to abortion?

That the sponsors of this bill would refer to the phrase “medically comparable” in so many instances throughout suggests that they have not heard of Harris v. McRae or are even purposefully ignoring this aspect of it. With the handing down of Roe v. Wade (and the lesser known but still consequential Doe v. Bolton) decision 40 years ago, abortion advocates have been beating the drum that women have a constitutional right to abortion. And yet it seems that “[t]hey’ve been losing ever since[.]” We can say, then, that when abortion advocates assert a supposed “right to privacy,”  they choose to see only the decisions and parts of decisions they want to see.

Many pro-abortion media outlets have excitedly reported on the bill, even while acknowledging the unlikelihood of it passing, which is often blamed on Republicans. Through her Biodork blog, on Freethought Blogs, Brianne Bilyeu makes an overly biased, ignorant, and generalized point about abortion regulations and those who sidewalk-counsel or serve as a pro-life witnesses outside abortion clinics:

… And of course, to even get inside the clinic they are often forced through a gauntlet of religiously-motivated abortion protesters who are willing to use virtually any tactic to get the patient to not enter the facility, including kidnapping[.]

The link to the kidnapping leads to a pro-abortion website, where the article eventually mentions that the scenario was a suggestion from a Facebook comment that never happened. That one extreme person would suggest kidnapping hardly suggests that “protesters … are willing to use virtually any tactic[.]”

Brianne has also likely never heard of the group Secular Pro-Life. Even more unfortunate, though, is that Brianne and Robin Marty, the author of the linked article, choose to ignore the criminal actions against pregnant women who wish to keep their babies. Such women are coerced or even forced to have abortions. Planned Parenthood even aids and abets kidnappers and sex-traffickers. And there are instances of violence against pro-lifers as well. Yet you will hardly hear the media reporting on such stories.

This bill is so wrong and so dangerous for women. It could even protect another Kermit Gosnell. One cannot help but question the loyalties of the sponsors and supporters of this bill. It is certainly not with women, no matter what the fancy title may be. No, when such a bill rejects commonsense legislation to the most extreme point and relies on false premises throughout, the loyalty is surely not with women, but with abortion and the procedure they perform and profit from.

To Top

Send this to friend