Abortion supporters make ridiculous comments about HR 1797

The historic passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act Tuesday didn’t transpire without some excellent remarks from pro-life Congresswomen—and, of course, some incredibly misleading statements from abortion supporters. 

After opening with a ramble about Miss Utah, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) told the House:

“When you consider the subject at hand, women’s right to a medically safe abortion, we once again see men taking leadership roles in invading the privacy and medical decisions of women, so that now we have a bill that is born of ignorance and disregard for medical science in every way, shape, and form… Perhaps if we could create education better of the importance of women’s lives, we would not be here with this bill before us.  This bill is an abomination, plain and simple…The bill is a direct threat to the privacy rights and health of every woman living in this country, and especially women of color.”

Rep. Lee, when you consider the subject at hand, abortionists ripping pain-capable unborn babies apart limb by limb and women dying from extremely dangerous abortions, we once again see women leading the charge to protect the lives of young babies and women’s health and safety.  Perhaps if we could educate our society about the importance of protecting the lives of both women and their unborn children, it wouldn’t be necessary to have this bill before us.  Abortion poses a direct threat to the rights of unborn children and the health of every woman living in this country. 

It’s unclear what exactly Rep. Lee meant by her assertion that this bill is “especially” a threat to women of color.  Does she think that women of color somehow need more abortions than other women?  Many would beg to differ; abortion is the number one killer of black lives in America today as Margaret Sanger’s racist agenda lives on. 

The White House issued a disappointing but unsurprising statement:

“The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1797, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor.

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose. This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women’s health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients’ health care decisions, and the Constitution.

The Administration is continuing its efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. At the same time, the Administration is committed to the protection of women’s health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they make.

If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.”

Mr. President, if preventing abortionists from yanking unborn children apart when they are capable of feeling excruciating pain is “an assault on a woman’s right to choose,” what exactly would be an acceptable restriction on abortion?  Your horrendous voting record in the Illinois state senate and recent remarks to abortion giant Planned Parenthood haven’t left Americans—the vast majority of whom oppose late-term abortions, by the way—very optimistic. 

And, if you truly believe that “government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor,” then why do you continue to sing the praises of Obamacare, in which the government is forcing taxpayers to pay for the abortion coverage of others against their will? 

This bill doesn’t show “contempt” for women’s rights; it shows support of women’s rights and dignity, particularly for baby girls who still live in their mothers’ wombs.  

Mr. President, if abortion is worth so vehemently protecting, then why is there any reason to reduce the need for it?  Does “supporting women and families in the choices they make” include supporting familial decisions to kill two-year-old children?  No?  Then why should it include decisions to kill 20-week-old children who feel unimaginable pain as they are viciously torn from the safety of their mothers’ wombs and dismembered in the name of “reproductive rights”?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA):

 “We do not need to change the law. Dr. Gosnell is convicted and he’s doing two life sentences in prison for murder under current law.” 

Rep. Lofgren, lack of regulation and current law’s general disregard for women’s health, safety, and dignity allowed Kermit Gosnell to butcher women and their pain-capable children—many of whom he killed after birth—for so long.  Given the abortion industry’s ever-growing history of negligence, do you really think that the many states that don’t adequately regulate abortion facilities are doing enough to ensure that women receiving abortions won’t die or suffer from serious complications?  Are you aware that Kermit Gosnell was caught because of an unrelated drug raid?

Rep. Lofgren, do you think that our country’s laws against murder should protect all human beings, or just those who are lucky enough to escape the painful tools of abortionists?  Should abortionists like Douglas Karpen go to prison for their crimes, too? And why don’t you agree that these monsters should be prevented from committing these heinous crimes in the first place?

During a press conference before the House began debating the bill, a reporter asked Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), “Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, said even if this saves one life, it will be worth doing.  Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout five months of pregnancy?”

She brilliantly responded:

“Well, this is um, we—we already have laws in many states of this country—this bill is, is blatantly unconstitutional and, um, and if you look at the perceived—er, if you look at the stated reason of doing this legislation, the Kermit Gosnell case, that gentleman was convicted of murder and sentenced to life.” 

Rep. DeGette, do you think that other “gentlemen” like late-term abortionist and convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell should continue to be allowed to dismember and mutilate human beings with scissors?  The majority of Americans don’t. 

Share this article: