Ann Neumann didn’t like yesterday’s post on the Stupak Amendment. Complaining about my lack of compromise. Sorry, when it comes to the sanctity of life, I don’t compromise. She notes:
There is no compromise when your work is to eliminate the most common medical procedure for women in the US.
When abortion is the most common medical procedure for women in the US, doesn’t that illustrate for Ms. Neumann that we have a problem? I’ll be clear that I want the health care reform bill scrubbed for a variety of reasons. While I know the Stupak-Pitts amendment does make it more palatable for some who are pro-life, and it does prohibit the use of federal funds to provide for abortions in the public option. I was pointing out the simple fact that it doesn’t make the bill “pro-life.” She brings up the Hyde Amendment, but it has been noted that this bill’s language is not consistent with the Hyde Amendment.
Lastly, Ms. Neumann proclaims that “Stupak-Pitts hurts women.” How is that exactly? The Stupak-Pitts amendment specifically addresses the issue if the life of the mother is in danger (which with neonatal advances really is a complete ruse, and the percentage of cases like this is miniscule). It also address rape and incest (again miniscule). No apparently Ms. Neumann thinks it hurts women because they can’t have abortion on demand on the taxpayer dime.
News flash – that doesn’t hurt women, other choices are available, but rarely embraced by the pro-abortion crowd. What really hurts women is abortion itself. It hurts physically. It hurts women psychologically. But let’s not talk about that, and abortion clinics often don’t.
Not to mention, first and foremost, the child that is hurt and then killed.
Update: Planned Parenthood which will receive expanded funding under HR 3962 really does have women’s interest at heart. I mean that’s why they enable statutory rape right? Well, at least they provide ingredients for a certain brand of skin cream. Doing their part to help women look young I guess.
HT: Emily Geiger
