Follow Save the 1
Thursday, February 19, 2015
New Mexico’s Late-Term Abortion Bill is Fatally Flawed by Rebecca Kiessling
New Mexico is currently the
late-term capitol of America, so understandably, with a new Republican majority
in the House, pro-life legislators and activists are making a push to get
late-term abortion banned in New Mexico.
Although New Mexico also has a pro-life Republican Governor – Susana Martinez,
it still has a solidly Democrat-controlled Senate (25-17.) Accordingly, this legislation is not expected
to pass the Senate, and so, is a “message bill.”
But what message is being
sent? Let’s take a closer look at the legislation,
HB 390. First of all, the definition of
abortion jumped out at me as being grossly ill-defined –” 2A. ‘abortion’ means
the intentional termination of the pregnancy of a female by a person who knows
the female is pregnant. “ This
definition would encompass any induction of labor, including a c-section, where
a baby is born healthy. If you take a
look at Merriam-Webster’s
definition of abortion, it is much more clearly defined: “the termination of a pregnancy after,
accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or
fetus.”
Now let’s take a look at the
exceptions in the bill under subsection 5B, in which a physician is allowed to
perform a late-term abortion on a viable unborn child over 20 weeks
gestationally:
(1)
the physician has determined that in the physician's opinion the late-term
abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman;
provided, however, that the physician shall take all reasonable steps to
preserve the life and health of the fetus; or
(2)
the pregnant woman asserts that the pregnancy resulted from sexual abuse, rape
or incest.
Most pro-life activists see the “health
of the mother” language and instantly recognize that this language is code for
abortion on demand, for any reason. Even
Congress’ flawed Pain-Capable
Unborn Child Protection Act, did not have a health of the mother exception,
but a very limited life of the mother exception, specifically excluding
psychological or emotional conditions.
In Doe v
Bolton – the companion case to Roe v Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court defined “health
of the mother” as follows: “that the
medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical,
emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the
well-being of the patient. All these
factors may relate to health.” This is
why the “health of the mother” exception has lead to abortion through all nine
months of pregnancy, for any reason.
Pro-choice activists know this, but apparently, New Mexico legislators
are unaware.
The second exception is, of
course, one which personally offends members of Save The 1, given that most of
us were either conceived in rape or are mothers from rape. Why do
we deserve the death penalty for the crimes of our biological fathers? Rapists don’t even get the death penalty –
see Coker
v Georgia (1977) and in Kennedy v Louisiana
(2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said it’s “cruel and unusual punishment”
even for child molesters. So how does
the innocent child deserve the death penalty for his crime?
Again, the flawed rape-exception Pain-Capable
bill in Congress even had some level of standards which passed muster for many
pro-life activists – that the rape had to be reported. When some female Republicans threatened to
block the bill unless that reporting requirement was removed, that was enough
for pro-life activists to retreat because even those who would compromise on
the rape exception, were unwilling to compromise on the reporting
requirement. This bill doesn’t even have
a reporting requirement, which again means abortion on demand for any
reason. After all, Roe
v Wade was founded on a false claim of rape.
Lastly, this mediocre bill sets
the penalty for intentionally killing a 20-week+ unborn child at $5,000, 1 year
license suspension and 18 months in jail, since it would only be a fourth
degree felony. In footnote
54 of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v Wade, the Court pointed out that the state’s whole
argument for personhood of the unborn child is undermined by exceptions, by
excluding the mother as a principal (as this bill does,) and by the penalty for
the abortion being “significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder.” As the Roe Court put it: “If the fetus is
a person, may the penalties be different?”
So
before pro-life activists in New Mexico go jumping on the band wagon, please
stop and ask yourselves, “What kind of message are we sending?”
BIO: Rebecca Kiessling is a wife, mother of 5 ,
attorney and international pro-life speaker, sharing her story of having been
conceived in rape and nearly aborted at two back-alley abortions, but legally
protected in Michigan pre-Roe v Wade.
She’s the founder and President of Save
The 1, and co-founder of Hope
After Rape Conception.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comment rules:
Please do not criticize or berate others you can disagree with their comments and views but please be an adult about things and don't resort to cursing, insulting, and name calling.
Please do not post any private information about yourself or others (i.e. email addresses, phone numbers, etc.)
Please be respectful, civil, and considerate.
The following is NOT allowed under any circumstances and will result in your comments being deleted and not published, and could result in you being banned from any further commenting.
No Blasphemy in any way shape or form this is a Christian owned blog.
No swearing, slandering, or threatening of any kind.
No insults of any religion, gender, race, will be allowed.
Any threats will be immediately reported to authorities.