Illinois Democrats introduce unpopular abortion expansion bill

Illinois Democrats will argue that their legislation to "expand" abortion "rights" merely reflects the popular sentiment to "protect women's health."

But the radical pair of newly introduced bills is popular only with hard-line advocates who favor an abortion not just up to the moment of birth, but also as late as when the baby has entered the birth canal and is entirely out of the womb.

The legislation would abolish existing Illinois laws that are supported by a majority or plurality of Americans. One that's targeted is a law (Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995) requiring that the parents of a minor (aka a girl) be informed that their daughter will have an abortion. The existing law doesn't even require that parental consent be obtained, as do a number of other states.

The bill also would require private insurance plans in Illinois to cover abortion just as if it was simply a component of maternity care. This in obvious violation of the First Amendment constitution protection of freedom of religious belief.  Persuading the public that abortion is health care and doesn't involve the death of a human being is a key public relations strategy of pro-choice hardliners. 

As if to ensure that an unborn baby has absolutely no rights to be balanced with the mother's, even after viability, the ironically named Reproductive Health Act (HB2495) provides "that a fertilized egg, embryo, or a FETUS does not have independent rights under the law, of this state."   [My emphasis.] Talk about cruel, heartless, monstrous and barbaric, this passage above all blurts out a here-to-for hidden agenda of abortion absolutists in all its ugliness.

The pair of bills that does all this also advances one of the most unpopular versions of "pregnancy termination"--partial-birth abortion. It is perhaps...

one of the most gruesome medical procedures there is today. A doctor will initiate the birth of the child, but stop the birthing process before it is completed. Then the fetus or baby is killed at that point before it is fully born. This is often referred to as a late-term abortion by those critical of the practice, but could theoretically be performed at any point in a pregnancy where a child could be viably born.

If you don't think it is gruesome or that it is merely a medical procedure that harms no one, please take a look at the video below that objectively describes the procedure. (Caution: Abortion hardliners will be offended.)

Don't listen to the silent scream.

Of course, the abortion industry and its allies (e.g. Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union) will call what I have written "extremist" and "outside the mainstream." In fact, they are outside the mainstream, as apply demonstrated by their support of this legislation

Gallup polling over the course of years proves it. Since 1975 when Gallup started its polling and two years after Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made these horrors possible, public opinion has been remarkably stable and moderate. Only 20-some percent over the decades have agreed with the hardliners' position that abortion should be legal under all circumstances. Roughly a couple of percentage points behind are those who say that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances.

In contrast, roughly half say that abortion should be allowed only under certain conditions. The largest plurality (generally in the high 30- or low 40-percent believe that abortion should be legal only in a few, limited circumstances.

Seventy-one percent favor a law requiring a minor to get parental consent (and not just that a parent be notified.) Sixty-four percent favor a law outlawing partial birth abortion. Eighty-seven percent favor a law requiring women be informed of the risks of abortion and 88 percent favor  a law requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives to abortion.

Pro-life advocates should be alerted that public opinion isn't mostly on their side either. For example, Gallup found consistent support for an abortion when a pregnancy endangers women's physical or mental health. But there is roughly an equal divide when it comes to supporting or opposing an abortion when the infant would be physically or mentally "impaired."

I was reminded by the mother of three teenage girls that Illinois minors must have parental consent for ear-piercing. That  argument was used years ago to support parental notification for a minor's abortion. It turned into a cliche, but it's still true that a parent has to "virtually sign your life away" to grant body piercing consent. Same for tattoos. Here's the consent form.

Do abortion hardliners argue that similar consent acknowledging the risks of abortion also should be required? I doubt it. That's because they argue that any abortion is legal because a woman has 100 percent control of her body. Even if it means that a squirming, painful human person will be 100 percent dead.

dennis@dennisbyrne.net

www.dennisbyrne.net

My historical novel: Madness: The War of 1812

Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    The infanticide bill is clearly unconstitutional. You cannot deny the right to life for a human being or claim that certain humans have "less" or no rights -- Dred Scott, anyone? Hitler? Lawmakers CANNOT legalize MURDER!
    Our constitution demands life for all humans. A human being can be viable at 22 weeks, while another unviable at 41 weeks. Thus there is no such thing as "late term abortion;" it's infanticide, and that is MURDER. Have we become barbarians who murder the most helpless among us? The "women's health" gambit is a LIE. There are very few instances where the mother's life is at stake: high blood pressure or other gestational issues. In those rare instances, THE BABY is not to blame for the issue, the pregnancy is. So the pregnancy is terminated by DELIVERING the BABY, not killing it in the most gruesome manner possible. This is an inhumane, brutal, horrific and evil act. If this positively medieval bill becomes law, I hope it it quickly challenged in the courts, and that more doctors stand by their Hippocratic Oath and REFUSE to perform murder.

  • In reply to FreeMarketMaven:

    "Our constitution demands life for all humans." Once again you say what you think is in the Constitution but you do not quote from it. The only part of the constitution dealing with the rights of a fetus that I can find is in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section One: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" are citizens and entitled to all privileges and immunities. Notice, these rights exist only after birth.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: