Hillary Clinton recently created a bit of a dust-up when she responded to an interviewer’s question about abortion by saying, “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”Mrs. Clinton accidently stumbled over the third rail of abortion doublespeak.
Mrs. Clinton’s statement wasn’t entirely accurate either. When a Michigan man killed a pregnant woman he was charged with a double homicide. Apparently the law provides for at least a modicum of protection for “unborn persons.” This also raises the question, if the mother had survived could the man have been charged with only a single murder or would he gat a pass because it was only fetal tissue?
As well, public policy is often focused on protecting the “unborn person.” Federal Medicaid and states’ C.H.I.P. programs spend billions of dollars annually on prenatal and birthing services.
Now, President Obama is asking for billions more to fight the Zika virus that causes devastating birth defects in those “unborn persons” that become infected.
The inconsistency in reasoning does not make for good policy. Clearly the modern argument that the contents of a woman’s uterus is nothing more than fetal tissue even through the ninth month of pregnancy doesn’t square with public policy, especially when medical science has spent billions of dollars advancing both pre and post natal care to the point where a baby as young as 22 weeks has survived.
Under current law the government may be funding both the health of the “unborn person” and, later in the pregnancy, the mother’s termination of the same “unborn person.”
Now we have an administration that is pursuing charges against a person who exposed the selling of intact body parts by Planned Parenthood. The government has this exactly backwards.
If Planned Parenthood is not prosecuted for this, it will open the door for women to enter into commercial agreements with publicly funded abortion providers to use their bodies as nothing more than incubators for the development and harvesting of baby parts.