According to many in the leftist dinosaur media, it was 50 years and one day ago, that the U.S. Supreme Court federally recognized and “protected” a “right” for a woman to get, and a doctor to perform, and abortion.
In reality, this obtuse mass of media accomplices smothered reality: the reality being that the 1973 “Roe v Wade” decision federalized the constitutionally reserved state prerogative to determine capital murder crimes and penalties, and the reality that, obviously, human life begins at conception.
Thus, there is a dark irony to the fact that, thanks to last year’s “Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization” decision, a long-needed SCOTUS ruling returning the question of abortion to the states, the Minnesota House just passed a measure which will allow the taking of a human life up to the moment of natural birth.
Paul Stark reports for LifeNews that the Minnesota House January 19 passed HF1/SF1:
“The Minnesota House narrowly approved the Protect Reproductive Options (PRO) Act, a sweeping bill that would enshrine unlimited abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, in Minnesota law. The legislation, H.F. 1 (S.F. 1), passed on a 69-65 vote and will next go to the Senate floor.”
Just the title, “Reproductive Options,” indicates that there likely is something dangerous to human life contained within, and that is because, by definition, once conception has occurred, human reproduction has taken place. What the authors of the bill are hiding is the fact that their legislation actually concerns birth, and when it comes to that, there only are two moral options, natural or Caesarian birth.
The purported “option” of abortion cancels, negates, voids, destroys the life created through reproduction.
Related: Maryland Abortion Bill Would Allow Infanticide Up to 4 Weeks After Birth | MRCTV
In all likelihood, the abortion-pushers selected their language specifically to provide euphemistic “feel good” cover to hide what they were doing, but the bill set off very loud alarm bells for residents of Minnesota care about the welfare and natural rights of babies in the womb.
The head of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) offered an apt observation:
“‘Let’s be clear: The PRO Act would mean it’s legal for any baby to be aborted, for any reason and at any time up to birth,’ said MCCL Co-Executive Director Cathy Blaeser. ‘The absolutist extremism of this bill would put Minnesota in the company of just a handful of countries worldwide, among them China and North Korea. Mothers and babies deserve a far more humane and compassionate approach.”
And the bill really is as extreme as Ms. Blaeser claims. Writes Stark:
“The House voted down or thwarted several amendments that would have lessened the bill’s extremism. One would prohibit the barbaric late abortion procedure known as partial-birth abortion. Another would protect unborn children in the third trimester (with exceptions), when they are well-developed and capable of living outside the womb (the amendment was defeated on a 67-67 vote). Another would help protect women’s health by requiring that Minnesota license abortion facilities, which are currently unlicensed and uninspected by the state.”
The moral quandary of licensing aside – proffering a state license overtly implicates a taxpayer’s money in the, again, overt approval of a baby-extermination factory to operate, which some taxpayers might not want on their conscience – the overall bill, without those changes, now moves to the Minnesota Senate, which very well could pass it without amendment, and then it will go to Democrat Governor Tim Walz, who has said he will be "happy" to sign it.
Which forces all observes, be they in or out of Minnesota, to step back and consider the larger moral and constitutional picture.
As noted above, the U.S. Constitution leaves in the hands of state governments the definition of – and punishment for – capital murder. But the Fourteenth Amendment also requires that states protect all citizens equally under the law.
This “Equal Protection Clause” was written as the northern-state-dominated U.S. government “reconstructed” the southern states after the Civil War, and it was put into the Fourteenth Amendment because in some southern states, laws prohibiting and punishing violence such as lynching were not being applied to protect black citizens.
So, as I often do, one can ask a pro-abortion resident of Minnesota, or any other locale a series of questions.
First: is a fetus a human being?
Yes. At the moment of conception, the newly created fetus is both human – with its own distinct DNA – and being – meaning alive, and on that great “life arc” until God decides to end that natural life. Any interference by a human is, without exception, the taking of a human life.
Second: do you, the pro-abortionist, approve of state statutes that purport to protect human beings from attacks and threats by others, and support state statutes that punish transgressors of the prohibition?
If the answer is "yes," and it likely will be nearly every time one engages in such an exchange, then the third question becomes clear: do you wish to have the state equally protect all human beings, as the Fourteenth Amendment mandates, or will you pick and choose which human beings will be protected?
This usually sets off the pro-abortionist, because not only is the logic irrefutable, the definition of human being also is irrefutable, and the lack of consistency on the part of the pro-abortionist also is clear.
The fact that the Constitution mandates equal protection also compels anyone who believes the Constitution is the rulebook for the U.S. to acknowledge that it lays out the areas where people in the various states can and cannot handle their own political affairs.
While Minnesota DOES have the constitutionally laid-out “power” to, hypothetically, not pass any statute regarding the taking of life, the legislature has, of course, passed such statutes.
As a result, should HF1/SF1 pass the state Senate – which could happen this week – it would run counter to previous Minnesota law and the US Constitution.
Opponents could bring suit on “Equal Protection” grounds, and then the SCOTUS would decide if they want to hear such a case.
That is the legal path that lays before the proponents of this horrifying bill.
The moral path is much darker.
Related: SCOTUS Rules States Can't Bar Religious Schools From Tax-Based Tuition Funds | MRCTV