Last week’s final approval of Indiana’s new abortion law is causing a nationwide stir, and not just among the expected pro-abortion activists. This time the controversy is also coming from some who claim a pro-life position.
On Wednesday, March 10, House Bill 1337, prohibiting doctors from knowingly performing abortions based on race, gender, or disabilities, passed with a 60-40 vote. This pro-life bill, introduced by Representative Casey Cox, would make Indiana the second state in the nation to have such legislation — North Dakota being the first to adopt this law in 2013.
Some oppose this bill, claiming it interferes with a woman’s right to make personal health decisions. State Representative Sean Eberhart (R-Shelbyville), who claims to be pro-life, advises, “We need to quit pretending that we know what’s best for women and their health needs.” Having discussed the bill with his wife, who he says is also pro-life, Eberhart came to the conclusion that, “Today is a perfect example of a bunch of middle-aged guys sitting in this room making decisions about what we think is best for women.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) responded, “We’re not making a determination about women’s health. We’re trying to protect the rights of the unborn, who cannot speak for themselves.”
Representative Cox, the bill’s author, believes this legislation will provide a chance at life for the “most vulnerable,” stating, “This is a human rights cause.”
Expanding the regard for humanity, HB 1337 also addresses another controversial and inhumane practice in the abortion arena: the disposal of the remains of aborted babies. According to lifesitenews.com, the main section of the bill prohibits the transportation of the bodies of aborted babies into or out of Indiana except for burial or cremation and requires that abortion facilities be responsible for their babies’ interment or cremation. It also specifies that aborted babies are not to be treated as bio-waste.
According to Cathie Humbarger of Indiana Right to Life (IRTL) in her testimony before the state legislature:
Accounts of the bodies of aborted babies being found in dumpsters, left on loading docks, and being ground up in garbage disposals in abortion facilities are being reported across the nation…. The state’s official report confirmed that the bodies of aborted babies — called the products of conception — are placed into biohazard boxes and kept for days prior to being picked up by medical waste companies…. Indiana Code must address the respectful disposition of the bodies of babies aborted here and prevent the bodies of babies being aborted in other states from being sent to Indiana landfills.
One feels dumbfounded at the necessity of having to defend the right of unborn humans, in a civilized society, not to have their dead bodies mutilated and dumped into trash bins or used for experimentation.
It seems to be a popular view among abortion advocates that while inside the womb, the person is merely a blob of tissue and not yet human, yet once outside the womb, this blob of subhuman tissue will take its place among the living, where then it will receive a race, gender, personality, and soul — an identity, if you will. It suddenly gains its value as a human being, as if a baby’s first breath of air is what makes him or her human. Such people have no qualms targeting an unborn baby for termination due to race, gender, or health, but would passionately defend this same child, once outside the womb, based on these very same issues.
Unsurprisingly, the ACLU falls into this category. A brief look at the organization’s website will show its support for the integration into society and autonomy of the disabled: “People in the United States are profoundly uncomfortable with people who have disabilities, especially significant or visible disabilities. This has led, consciously or unconsciously, to health care, housing, and employment that segregates people with disabilities from the rest of society.”
There is, likewise, no question as to whether this organization promotes equality based on race or gender, as they have made their agenda well known. However, the ACLU has opposed this Indiana bill that would protect unborn babies from being killed based upon race, gender, or disability.
Cosmopolitan magazine, demonstrating this same Jekyll and Hyde behavior, published an article by Prachi Gupta on March 10, denouncing Indiana’s new abortion law as “egregious,” and complaining that, “If House Bill 1337 is signed into law, abortions sought because a fetus has been diagnosed with a disability (such as Down Syndrome) will be banned.” Gupta discusses the physical, emotional, and financial burdens she believes this will cause women, and bemoans that medical researchers will be prohibited from collecting fetal remains for their work. She sums up her views on the matter with a derisive evaluation of House Speaker Bosma’s comments on protecting the unborn:
Indiana Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma is not thinking of the living and breathing women whose lives will be forever altered by these laws…. Instead, he is thinking of the fetuses — or as he refers to them, the “unborn children.”
That same day, Cosmo published an article by Jess Edwards championing Madeline Stuart, an 18-year-old Australian model with Down syndrome. Praising her courage and determination while boasting fairytale-like wedding photos of the model, the magazine positively quotes Madeline’s mother, “Maddy really wants to change the way people discriminate against disability through gaining attention through social media. She wants people to know that Down Syndrome is a blessing, something to be celebrated.” (Emphasis added.)
So, which potion will we drink today, Dr. Jekyll? Shall we celebrate Down syndrome as a blessing, or shall we hail Mr. Hyde to handle this egregious burden on society? And what flippant and selfish criteria will be used next to make that determination?
According to Indiana state Senator Liz Brown, many families are pressured to abort by healthcare professionals when their babies are diagnosed with a disability. She stated,
What we hear from doctors is: “It would really be better … if you were not born. If you are born, we will love you, and we think you have equal rights and should be a member of society. In fact, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act and have to make accommodations. But we don’t want to make the accommodation before you’re born, and in fact, it would really be easier if you were not born.”
Mother Teresa addressed this attitude of despising inconvenience with her insightful words, “It is a poverty that a child must die, so that you may live as you wish.”
These atrocious acts against humanity should stir disgust and indignation in a civilized society. However, by allowing the desensitization of the feelings and manipulation of the intelligence of that society by prominent, agenda-driven narcissists, some find their passions of abhorrence being leveled instead at those who would defend this humanity.
As pro-lifers are hopeful that Indiana’s Governor Pence will sign this bill, they are likewise thankful for the action taken by the state legislators to protect the unborn. Action is necessary for results. Fortunately, there are legislators such as those in Indiana and North Dakota who are willing to take action to preserve the sanctity of life.
Let us not forget the words of Thomas Jefferson: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”
