Share this Post
It’s so horrifically appalling it leaves me speechless. To be sure, murdering any baby (i.e., abortion) at any stage of pregnancy is dreadfully inhumane. But the newly envisioned standards set forth in New York and Virginia go beyond even that level of selfish wickedness and violate our society logically (contrary to common sense), medically, (contrary to the Hippocratic Oath), and biologically (contrary to reproductive science).
But consider this: Such language and intentions also violate our society criminally. After all, verbalizing intent to do harm to someone is illegal, a federal, arrestable, punishable offense.
Let’s make sure we’re reporting correctly, okay? Governor Cuomo of New York proposed publicly his desire to expand abortion “rights” to as late as the third trimester by non-doctors up until the point of birth for various reasons. And Virginia state legislator Kathy Tran has introduced legislation that would make abortion legal even at term and in the middle of birth. In their world, a baby is “optional” up to the point, and even after, one knows a living human being is en route to being seen. It’s not an issue of viability any longer, but one of visibility. This is ghoulishly ghastly and nothing short of suggesting our society embrace infanticide. It’s a publicly announced death wish on babies.
Remember—the removal and/or adjusting of the existing parameters and limits is to make abortion easy as possible and as late as possible. That’s without question. Why? Because laws already exist for the rare cases that occur in the third trimester related to both baby and mother. New York’s new law and Virginia’s proposed bill (though defeated) are aimed, not at protecting life, but at ending it. And ending it even as late as when a baby is in the birth canal, or even after (if an abortion is botched). So let me be repetitively clear: These leaders are suggesting our society embrace infanticide. It’s a publicly announced death wish on babies.
So here’s my initial question: Isn’t that a threat of bodily harm, or what criminal law would call assault or harassment? The answer? Yes.
In Iowa, where I live, the assault statute protects one from, not only injurious of offensive physical contact, but the threat of injurious of offensive physical contact (Title XVI, Subtitle 1, Chap. 708 & 708.1).
In Texas, their Penal Code 22.07(a)(2) states that “a person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person” or to “place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.”
And in New York? The harassment statute there (Penal Law 240.21-240.32) defines harassment in the first degree, a class B misdemeanor, as when one’s conduct results in the victim being placed in reasonable fear of physical injury.
Generally, all across America, you can’t just declare your intent to harm another person. Especially publicly. That’s assault. (Battery is acting on that threat and actually hurting another.) You can’t threaten the President, your boss or employee, your neighbor, a spouse, or a child. And if you do, you’ll be arrested. But apparently you can threaten
In my opinion, Cuomo and Tran, in announcing their desire for new abortion parameters, have committed the first of those two criminal offenses towards the most innocent among us—babies! It’s staggering that public officials can call for such brutal action and propose such heinous procedures to our offspring without any legal reprisal. Sure, there is public outrage and backlash. But shouldn’t there be legal ramifications?
Admittedly, I could approach this issue from a number of angles. I could discuss it spiritually, culturally, even politically. I could even debate this issue from the three perspectives I mentioned in the first paragraph—logically, medically, and biologically. And I have for years with various people. It’s the single, national issue that, at least as a citizen, filters my vote and moves my feet to action.
But as I think about this further and frightful twist of abortion laws from Gov. Cuomo and State Rep. Tran, I am thinking about it legally, as in the rule of law. Doesn’t their language rise to the level of threats? Aren’t they having conversations about intention to harm? How can one publicly announce such an aim—fatal and terminal action upon a child, even one in the final stages of becoming visible to the world—and not have to answer for it legally? Can we not hear Lady Justice, joining the 50+ million babies who’ve been aborted since Roe v. Wade, crying out for a rightful response rooted in the law of the land? Propose it as a bill, announce it as women’s rights, dress it up as medical advancement. In the end, no matter how you disguise it verbally, it legally looks and sounds like assault to me. And that’s a crime.
One thing is for sure—As the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade looms on the horizon, those who want their sex their way at all costs will stop at nothing to ensure they can rid themselves of any and all consequences of their unrestrained lusts. That’s really what abortion is all about—threaten with death anything and anyone that inconveniences their sexual appetites. We’ve known this since 1973. It’s clearer than ever now.
Share this Post