So much misinformation in the Newsweek article "Abortion and the States: Mississippi Churning". Where to begin? Let’s just go paragraph by paragraph.
On her way in to the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Mississippi last week, anti-abortion protesters descended on her, imploring her not to "murder" her unborn baby. "It isn’t that we’re selfish, heartless people," she said once inside, her eyes brimming with tears. "When you have that baby, those people aren’t going to be around to pay for Pampers or day care."
This is one of the biggest false arguments that pro-choicers have against pro-lifers (specifically pro-life politicians): "You care so much about the baby before it’s born, but you offer nothing after the baby’s born." However, like the overwhelming majority of pro-choice claims, this too is false. It may be true of some pro-life politicians, but if it were true of the rank-and-file pro-lifers, then explain the multitudes of "Crisis Pregnancy" centers (not to mention the vast majority of churches and other faith-based organizations), such as JMJ Life Center, which not only offers information on alternatives to abortion, but also offers
- Maternity Clothes
- Baby Supplies
- Baby Furniture
- Formula and Baby Food
- Children’s Clothes to 4T
- Educational Literature
- Mentoring to New Mothers
- As well as referrals for:
- Medical Needs
- Social Services
- Continuing Education
- Financial Assistance
- Post-Abortion Healing
- Natural Family Planning
So much for the "uncaring pro-lifers" angle – the truly uncaring ones are those in the media that refuse to give airtime to crisis pregnancy centers, so that women can get the help they need all throughout pregnancy and afterward. It seems the only information the mainstream media wants to give about faith-based organizations is when they rehash old stories about some sex scandal or other things, rather than highlight the ways in which non-government services are actually helping people.
Back to the article…
Her right to have the procedure, however, appears more imperiled than ever.
SLANT ALERT: this "right" to have the "procedure" may be imperiled, but the "procedure" (a.k.a., the medically-assisted killing of a living human being) is by no means a right in the first place.
Rights are things endowed to each person by their Creator (see "Declaration of Independence"). Some of these rights have to do with liberty, e.g. the right to voice an opinion, the right to pass that opinion on to others, the right to worship your Creator, and the right to point out where those in positions of authority may be wrong (See 1st Amendment). Other rights have to do with property, e.g. due process, eminent domain, etc. But superseding them all is the right, granted by the Creator, that makes all the other rights possible – the right to life!
Rights are not things granted to certain individuals by a government – they are things that the government must respect, because they were endowed by a higher power. No government can give a person life, so that life must be respected, because a higher power than the government made it so. The so-called "right to abortion" fails this test of being a right because:
- it is only granted to the women of this country, with no input, positive or negative, from the men who have an interest in the pregnancy, and
- the government did not cause the pregnancy to occur – therefore it cannot grant rights for it to not occur.
The higher power that grants rights is not the Supreme Court (which discovered the "right to abortion" in "shadows and emanations" of the Constitution – see Eph 5:11-12 and 1 Cor 4:5 about what is found in the darkness of shadows), but rather the Creator, and the Creator does not "create abortions", nor did the Creator grant a "right to abortion". If the actions of the Creator could be annihilated by the Supreme Court "discovering" a right against them, then there could also be a "right to steal", a "right to kill", a "right to rape", and a "right to destroy/burn/pillage/plunder/etc." As ridiculous and abhorrent as these are, so too is the "right to abortion".
With their legislative allies, they’ve succeeded in passing some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country
Isn’t this what they said about South Dakota as well? It seems that, although they find abortion "undesirable" and they do not "celebrate" it, they also have never met an abortion restriction they liked.
when the bill reached Democratic Rep. Steve Holland, chair of the House public health and human services committee, he stripped out the sonogram provision and inserted the outright ban. "I have been besieged over the last three to four years by the right-to-life people" and their myriad measures, says Holland. "The time has come" for an up or down vote.
Of course the time has come, according to a Democrat "besieged" by pro-lifers. If they don’t act now and get this case before a still liberal Supreme Court, they may actually lose the battle.
If the new bill passes, Susan Hill, president of the National Women’s Health Organization, which owns the clinic, vows to sue to block it. "We didn’t come to Mississippi to be run out," she says.
No, they came to Mississippi to kill babies, and they’ll sue if the residents of Mississippi dare to say they don’t want their fellow human beings killed. How dare those Mississippians think they have a say in their own destinies? Where do they think they live, in a democracy?
I’d just like to throw it out there that Mississippi still has a large "minority" population. Makes me wonder why these NOW women want to kill babies in Mississippi so badly. Maybe it has to do with Planned Parenthoods origins in eugenics.