Congress' Rape Exception Gave Pro-Abort Dems the Floor on the Rape Debate by Jim Sable

Since HR36, Congress’ Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, did not follow solid pro-life principles, (a discriminatory rape/incest exception was included), debate on the floor of the House of Representatives resulted in some unintended consequences.  Did anyone else notice this?  The Democratic Party representatives -- the radically pro-abortion House members who testified in opposition to HR36, went on and on, speaker after speaker, presenting their sympathetic case that abortion is compassionate and protective of women after rape conception.  We are armed with the truth of what it takes to support a woman through her trauma after rape while also protecting her baby, so wasn't their rant on rape painful to listen to? The pro-abort Democrats' opinion is that the rape exception, as revised for the current bill, is still too restrictive.  They would make the same objections to a bill without a rape and incest exception, but this time, there was no counter-argument. 

Our pro-life legislators had no rebuttal to this.  Why?  Because the bill has a rape exception, so how could they argue about wanting to protect children like me who were conceived in rape?  How could they argue for our humanity?  How could they argue the truth that rape victims are worse off after an abortion and survivors like my birthmother are better off after giving birth?

All that the pro-life side was left with was an abstract, logic-defying counter-argument suggesting that it is the rape exception in the bill which protects women’s health -- a similar argument to one which was used to promote the bill in the weeks preceding the vote.  Most of the pro-life legislators avoided discussing the exception entirely.  Understand that because of the added rape exception, it was impossible to discuss any cases of mothers from rape/incest or rape/incest-conceived individuals which tell positive, life-affirming stories of hope and redemption which would overwhelm the darkness contained in the testimony of the Democrats!

It certainly is not logical to attempt to defend the lives of the rape-conceived or to encourage mothers to choose life after conceiving through rape, while at the same time promoting a rape exception and guaranteeing the right to abortion after rape conception in our own “pro-life” sponsored law!  As you can see, when the bill is allowing abortion after a rape conception -- when our side is actually setting up the process by which an abortion after rape conception can be acquired -- the option of bringing life-affirming stories to legislative debate is eliminated and the opposition gets to dominate the debate on this topic. 

Were there no rape exception, truly pro-life Congressmen would be free and able to completely defeat the false claims that an abortion is the compassionate response to rape conception.  However “instructive” some on our side think the HR36 bill is, whatever opportunity we have to make a sympathetic case for the humanity of the unborn late-term baby, is wholly negated by the pro-abortion Democrats’ continuous talk of the tragedy of the raped and pregnant woman.  From their perspective, they had their own sympathy element to highlight.  With the rape exception in the bill, pro-life Congressmen could do nothing to counteract that. 

I hope this really is instructional – for the pro-life side.  Pro-Life Congressmen need to stick to principle and focus on punishing rapists, not babies.

BIO:  Jim Sable, conceived in rape, is a husband, father of 3, and  pro-life speaker and blogger for Save The 1.  He’s a Board Member of Save The 1 and Board Member of Hope After Rape Conception.  His story is featured in the DVDs “Except in Cases of Rape?  12 Stories of Survival,” and “Conceived in Rape and Other Exceptions.”