It’s been clear for a long time that “abortion rights” are “rights to a DEAD BABY.”
Why else would Senator Hirono be fighting tooth and nail against the Born Alive Protection Act, which literally prevents ZERO abortions, but would protect any CHILD that survived one?
Why else would Senator Hirono be fighting tooth and nail against the Born Alive Protection Act, which literally prevents ZERO abortions, but would protect any CHILD that survived one?
“Oops, the abortion didn’t work, the child lived, but that is the INCONVENIENCE you didn’t WANT! But don’t worry, it’s okay to let the born child die! Of course, since it’s BORN, it isn’t REALLY about 'YOUR BODY, YOUR CHOICE' or 'BODILY AUTONOMY'! It’s a DEAD BABY you want."
I can see no other logic that could be at play here. If the child is already BORN, even via a botched abortion, what other logic that “a right to a dead baby” could justify allowing it to DIE?
Certainly NO appeal to the mother's body or health or autonomy could. IT IS BORN.
Certainly NO appeal to the mother's body or health or autonomy could. IT IS BORN.
