Posted by
Bob Siegel on Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:43:37 PM
On the same day as
the horrible and tragic murders at Virginia Tech University, another
event of major importance was almost missed in the news: The
Supreme Court decided to uphold the challenged ban on partial birth
abortion. This was huge. Well, not huge enough for programs
like The O'Reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes. They didn't even mention it. But The New York Times noticed with an April 19th editorial entitled: Denying the Right To Choose.
Hmm "Denying the right to choose." What an incredibly
original and creative way to express the issue. Who says The New
York Times uses talking points or tired old sayings?
2 little morsels seemed to jump off the page at me.
“Yet these five male justices
felt free to override the weight of medical evidence presented during the
several trials that preceded the Supreme Court showdown.”
Notice how they go out of their way to say “male justices”
? Could this be another tired, talking
point? “It’s males suppressing females!”
Here’s a flash for our clear thinking historical revisionists:
Most of the leaders in the pro-life movement are women, not men. But you won’t read that in the New York
Times. Neither do they complain that male justices upheld abortion in
1973. You see, males are allowed to make
decisions when they’re liberal decisions.
The next tasty morsel:
“It severely eroded the
constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal
decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth.”
What a crafty, deceitful, disingenuous statement: The original Roe Vs Wade and Doe Vs. Dolton
rulings were not to allow abortion in the third trimester. At least, that’s how
Pro Choice people defended it:
“Oh we won’t allow it in the third trimester when the baby
is viable and could live out of the womb. Don’t worry.
We aren’t for that.”
Of course, the law in fact did allow third trimester
abortion if the health of the mother was at risk. And health could be defined
any way a woman and her doctor decided. Health could be defined as her feeling the stress and
inconvenience of a pregnancy.
1973 opened up Pandora’s Box and the box is almost
completely empty now. We have moved
beyond abortion to infanticide for infants who could live outside the womb of
the mother and be cared for by another
if the mother doesn’t want her own baby. We also have physician assisted
suicide.
With this low regard for life, what will be next? We have already traveled along the spectrum
from babies who cannot chose to speak for their own lives, to adults who can
choose to die. What’s the next, step and
missing link? What’s the next movement
along this slippery slope? I think the
prediction is rather obvious: Adults who are no longer allowed to choose.
Mandatory euthanasia! We've already seen
foreshadowing such as the Terri Shivo case. Even before, Shivo, the popular
phrase: “Quality of Life” was becoming ordinary even though it is also absolutely
chilling.
We may be on a road without any turns but for now that drive
has been slowed down by the Supreme Court and for this, we should all be
grateful.
In addition to his public speaking ministry, Bob
Siegel writes regularly on bobsiegel.townhall.com and in the Southern
California magazine: Paper
Lion
The Bob Siegel Show can be heard every Sunday from 3:00 to 4:00 PM Pacific Time, On San Diego’s KCBQ, 1170
on the dial or KCBQ.com to listen live over the internet.
Call in toll free number if you want to join in the program
with questions or comments:
1-888-344-1170
Bob’s website is: www.bobsiegel.net