Thread by @JMHendersonSr

When the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to get their children killed in filthy, cramped, even public safety condemnation worthy abortion stores, there was, frankly, a broad variety of reactions, a few of which kind of shocked even this jaded old pro-lifer.

First, of course, there were the pro-aborts who celebrated the decision striking down health and safety regulations imposed on abortion stores.

For this crowd, any regulation imposed on abortion stores is, in fact, an attack on women's liberties, disguised as a kind of paternalism. A name not likely to be heard in the polite conversations of this crew?

Kermit Gosnell, the abortion salesman that liked to kill babies that were born alive after their mothers had paid him to produce dead children.

Second, there were the pro-lifers who, feigned or real, were shocked that the Supreme Court struck down health and safety regulations for abortion stores, particularly given that the regulations were no different than the kinds that Texas imposed

on other free standing health clinics and ambulatory surgical centers.

"You mean, if a doctor is going to install or remove stitches, she has to scrub, wear gloves, have a plan for disposing of medical wastes, and work in a building built to a code designed with the provision of medical services in mind?"

That's the kind of remark these folks made ... I know, I made it.

A third group exists that are owner-operators of abortion stores that did not/could not/would not meet the new standards and, as a consequence, decided to close.

This group doesn't participate much in the public conversation of such questions, so we can only imagine what there remarks looked like.

Perhaps, "Whew, I was afraid I was going to have to remove the urinals from the walls of this men's restroom in the gas station before I hired myself out to women to kill their children." Then, of course, they'd pause long enough to scratch their filthy scalps or privates.

The last group, like the second group, falls on the side of the line opposed to legalized child murder. This group, however, expressed an odd kind of support for the Supreme Court's decision.

"Good. Women trying to murder their children should face these kinds of risks and consequences, their filthy deeds ought to be done in filthy places.!"

There might be some other categorizations, but that was how I saw the divisions playing out.

When the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to get their children killed in filthy, cramped, even public safety condemnation worthy abortion stores, there was, frankly, a broad variety of reactions, a few of which kind of shocked even this jaded old pro-lifer.

First, of course, there were the pro-aborts who celebrated the decision striking down health and safety regulations imposed on abortion stores.

For this crowd, any regulation imposed on abortion stores is, in fact, an attack on women's liberties, disguised as a kind of paternalism. A name not likely to be heard in the polite conversations of this crew?

Kermit Gosnell, the abortion salesman that liked to kill babies that were born alive after their mothers had paid him to produce dead children.

Second, there were the pro-lifers who, feigned or real, were shocked that the Supreme Court struck down health and safety regulations for abortion stores, particularly given that the regulations were no different than the kinds that Texas imposed

on other free standing health clinics and ambulatory surgical centers.

"You mean, if a doctor is going to install or remove stitches, she has to scrub, wear gloves, have a plan for disposing of medical wastes, and work in a building built to a code designed with the provision of medical services in mind?"

That's the kind of remark these folks made ... I know, I made it.

A third group exists that are owner-operators of abortion stores that did not/could not/would not meet the new standards and, as a consequence, decided to close.

This group doesn't participate much in the public conversation of such questions, so we can only imagine what there remarks looked like.

Perhaps, "Whew, I was afraid I was going to have to remove the urinals from the walls of this men's restroom in the gas station before I hired myself out to women to kill their children." Then, of course, they'd pause long enough to scratch their filthy scalps or privates.

The last group, like the second group, falls on the side of the line opposed to legalized child murder. This group, however, expressed an odd kind of support for the Supreme Court's decision.

"Good. Women trying to murder their children should face these kinds of risks and consequences, their filthy deeds ought to be done in filthy places.!"

There might be some other categorizations, but that was how I saw the divisions playing out.

I suppose one last recognizable categorization exists: anarchical. Such folks will, not out of love for abortion (because anarchism is to abortion as fish are to bicycles), condemn the whole process of state regulation of medical care.

Why should the state decide in what manner or from whom I choose to obtain care for my impacted toe nail, or you, for your fungus, or her for her UTI?

Pure anarchists, as I am coming to understand them, allow individual responsibility for outcomes to serve in the making of individualized choices. Choose to murder your baby in the medical community's version of a toilet in a dysentery ward, and you choose the likely outcomes.

The truth is, whether the abortion business is so clean you could eat your murdered child off the operating room floor, or so pungently filthy that you'd have vomiting spasms until you miscarried,

one thing that these conversations always put "in play" is how we talk about, how we balance out, the life of a child and the life of the child's mother.

For example, I greatly appreciate the work of Troy Newman, Cheryl Sullenger, and Operation Rescue.

They have worked hard to expose unlicensed abortion stores, unqualified medical doctors, and the dozens and dozens of injuries that "regular" media outlets ignore, either because they don't bother to cover abortion stores in their news, or

because covering the harms caused by abortion doesn't fit with the preferred narrative of such outlets.

At the same time, when Operation Rescue announces that yet another woman has been harmed, hurt, or killed by the work of some abortion store, there is something they don't do, and that, frankly, I wish they did.

They don't report on the condition of the child on whom the mom had taken out, and the abortion store employees had accepted, a contract to kill. Even just a simple tagline,

"No word as yet on the condition of the child that was targeted by the abortion business" would serve as a completely NON SUBTLE reminder that in each of these instances, there always at least one entirely INNOCENT victim.