(Fred Weinberg) – Maybe, in my sixth decade, I’ve become an old curmudgeon.
Or, maybe, I just grew up during a time when we knew what was right, what was wrong and what was a gray area—despite a generational fling with “if it feels good, do it”.
Whatever, I just cannot dismiss the stories of doctors, who take the Hippocratic oath, partially birthing, then custom killing a 20-week-old baby so as to best preserve the body parts to sell.
As reviled as the Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court is, here is the relevant part to these baby killings, euphemistically referred by the left as “procedures”.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
Any state which doesn’t choose to stop this nonsense during the second and third trimesters is, quite simply, adding abortions to their definition of justifiable homicide.
Only it’s not a homeowner standing his ground against a home invasion.
Frankly, we need prosecutors—who all too often worry about offenses like “hate crimes” and bad checks—to hold a grand jury inquiry about every abortion performed after 12 weeks. Roe v. Wade clearly gives states that ability. Nevada Revised Statute 442.250 was actually adopted by a vote of the people and cannot be revised. The statute is quite specific and it is interesting, in light of the disclosures made by the recent videos that prosecutors have not hauled in the mother, the doctor and allowed a group of regular citizens to ask if, indeed, the health of the mother was involved or if it was merely a ruse to get rid of an unwanted life.
Maybe it’s time to start asking prosecutors why they don’t.
More than that, we need to call a spade a spade.
We need to start calling things what they are instead of using euphemisms so that we all feel more comfortable.
When you drag a baby in the second trimester from a mother’s womb and crush its skull, that’s not an abortion or a reproductive health procedure or an exercise in women’s health.
That’s killing a baby. I don’t care what Hillary Clinton or Debbie Wasserman Schulze calls it because they’re in it for votes and money.
Baby killing is almost the same as killing a lion in Zimbabwe.
Do you know what the difference is?
The lion can run.
Nobody loves animals as much as we do. And I fail to see the sport in killing a 13-year-old lion simply because some clown paid $55,000 so he could.
But, if they extradite that clown to Zimbabwe, we also ought to be prosecuting any doctor who performs an abortion of any baby in the second or third trimester unless it can be conclusively proven that there was a real and immediate threat to the mother’s life or health.
If doctors know that they are going to have to answer those questions to a grand jury under oath, my guess is that the number of second and third-trimester baby killings will be sharply reduced.
And, frankly, I’ve had just about enough of hearing that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body.
Maybe, she does during the first trimester per Roe v. Wade, but slavery is over and babies are no more personal property today than black slaves were then.
Mr. Weinberg is publisher of the Penny Press. Get to know more about him by visiting www.PennyPressNV.com.