The total embrace of abortion on demand was on full display last week as New York state lawmakers cheered the passage of their abortion bill, offering the odious bit of legislation a thunderous, standing ovation. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo even ordered for the One World Trade Center’s spire to be illuminated in pink light in honor of the bill, transforming the peak of “Freedom Tower” into a massive blood-tinted monument to pro-abortion excess.
In the Virginia House of Delegates this week, there was an equally ghastly display of pro-abortion zeal, as Democrat Kathy Tran introduced a bill that similarly allows for late-term abortions. In a video circulated online this week, a clearly discomforted Tran clarified for the state’s deliberative body that her bill allows for abortions to be performed even when the mother is “about to give birth” and even when “she’s dilating.”
One difference between the pro-abortion circuses in the Empire State and the Old Dominion is that Tran at least had the appearance of being ashamed of what she is seeking to normalize through law. But all that tells us is that Democrats are still united in the push for total abortion, even when some of them are clearly uncomfortable with what they’re advocating. Further, the Virginia bill will likely be defeated by the House’s majority Republicans, but only after enjoying a resounding endorsement from the state’s Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, who went out of his way Wednesday to defend the bill on the largest local media platform available to his office.
This is the modern-day Democratic Party. It’s all abortion, all the way down.
To borrow the old Virginia Slims catchphrase: you’ve come a long way, baby.
the action of officially excluding someone from participation in the sacraments and services of the Christian Church. pic.twitter.com/xmIVQxjY42
— Scubalou (@LoufromCT) January 26, 2019
Walsh rails at the supine, feeble response of the Church:
Meanwhile, those who actually are in the business of devil-fighting, instead of devil-worshipping, are AWOL. That would be the Catholic Church (the rest of the Christian sects are too far gone to care, or care about), in the form of the Irishman, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, and the Argentine-born Italian pope, Francis. If any single public figure has richly earned public excommunication from the Church, Andrew Cuomo is him. And yet, where are Francis and Cardinal Dolan?
So, what are you going to do about it, Your Eminence? Nothing: “Notable canon lawyers have said that, under canon law, excommunication is not an appropriate response to a politician who supports or votes for legislation advancing abortion,” he said in a statement.
This is not only wrong, it’s cowardly, which is what we’ve come to expect from the American bishops, who have been so busy trying to bury their gay clergy scandal without getting the hems of their skirts dirty that—since many of them have no skin in the game in more ways than one—they don’t have time for matters of faith and morals any more.
Ah, but the Dagger Johns of the Church Militant are long gone, and in their place have come the mincing social-justice warriors in cassocks and mitres, too fearful of man to be fearful of God, false to their faith and false to their mission. Andrew Cuomo and his gloating, murderous, ilk are bad enough, but these whited sepulchers are even worse, because they know better and don’t care.
Which, I propose, is a big part of the reason why the Christian flock is abandoning its putative shepherds in droves. Well, that, and the ubiquitous degeneracy of America’s sick, narcissistic culture.
What I’m not seeing anywhere, though, is any recognition of what this argument is really all about. It’s not, or at least not entirely, about the Democrat-Marxist “culture of death,” or Sangerian eugenics, I don’t think. It’s about consequence-free sex and wholesale promiscuity. Abortion is now purely a matter of convenience, a last-ditch birth control method. When Democrat-Marxists encourage a perception of babies as life-limiting, choice-restricting inconveniences—not an enrichment of one’s life, but the end of it, to be not welcomed with joy and anticipation but dreaded with horror and despair as a crippling affliction—how could it possibly be otherwise?
Female prerogative update! The truth revealed, as Demonrat “logic” finally catches up with them.
As my colleague David Harsanyi pointed out on Twitter, is there a difference between aborting a fetus in the third trimester because it’s causing the mother emotional distress, and killing a premature infant in the NICU for the same reason? If there is a difference, what is it? Will any Democrat say?
They will not, because there is no difference, and they know it. These bills demonstrate that the debate over abortion was never about when life begins. All that hemming and hawing about a fetus just being a “clump of cells” was disingenuous from the start.
In fact, there has never been any doubt about when human life begins (it begins at conception). The debate was always about whether we would by law make the life of the unborn—or the just-born—subject to the convenience and desire of the mother. Democrats have decided that we should.
Until recently, abortion advocates refused to acknowledge this. But now they are coming around, in part because the Democratic Party’s leftist base has demanded it. They don’t want any more talk about abortion being “safe, legal, and rare,” they want to proclaim it as a positive good. But to do that, abortion mustn’t hinge on a question of biology or gestation or fetus viability, but on the sheer will of the mother.
We used to hear abortion defenders talk about a woman’s body—“my body, my choice”—and how male legislators shouldn’t be telling a woman what to do with her body, as though the fetus were an appendage or an organ. To some extent we still hear that sort of language. But with the Democratic Party’s sharp leftward lurch, and the legislation Democrats are now advancing in blue states, the emphasis has unmistakably shifted from a woman’s body to her will.
Now at last the pretense has lifted and we can talk about what we should have been talking about for the past 46 years: whether parents have the right to commit infanticide against their unwanted children.
And, as I mentioned above, whether sexual profligacy free of constraint and consequence is a good and desirable goal—or even possible at all—and if it is, is abortion-as-contraception a morally defensible means of achieving it.