Pro-Aborts And Belligerent Beguiling

January 15, 2009 09:00 AM

Recently, a pro-life coworker sent us a very interesting letter that he had received from his congresswoman in response to his request that she vote no when and if the Freedom of Choice Act comes up for a vote in the House of Representatives.

He felt it was a waste of time to write rabily pro-abortion Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, but he did so anyway because he believes, as we all do, that we should never give up on anyone.

Since I am a great believer in helping people understand pro-aborts’ misuse of the English language, I wanted to use the congresswoman's letter as a good example of why we have to be so careful about the words we use. Following is the text of that letter, and my analyses of Baldwin’s distortions are inserted in bracketed blue text.

Thank you for contacting me about a woman's right to choose.
[I presume she means a mother’s right to choose death for her preborn child, should she be so inclined.]

It is good to hear from you. As you are aware, abortion is a difficult and divisive issue, but one on which I have a firm position.
[Abortion is an act that takes the life of a human being.]

I am pro-choice and support the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which protects a woman's right to choose.
[She is pro-abortion by her own admission. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton do not address the personhood of the child, but rather render unto mothers – not mothers and fathers – the decision to decide to end a preborn baby’s life by a decriminalized act of killing.]

For this reason, I was deeply disappointed when, on April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the federal abortion ban.
[The Supreme Court ruled to permit partial-birth abortion in cases wherein the mother’s life is allegedly in danger and spoke to the ways in which the same babies could be killed by other methods.]

For the first time since Roe v. Wade, the Court approved an abortion prohibition that contains no exception safeguarding a woman's health and allowed abortion procedures to be criminalized.
[A mother’s health or lack thereof should never be a reason to murder anyone, including a preborn child. It is a fact, according Dr. James Dobson, among others, that not a single abortion will be prevented by that Supreme Court decision.]

The Court majority's belief that the health and well-being of the mother are not factors in whether to permit a medically-recommended procedure is an affront to all women and their families.
[Abortion is a brutal act of killing. Aborting a child has never helped a family situation improve; abortion causes pain, anguish and deep sorrow.]

This decision is cause for deep concern to every American who cares about women's health and is merely the first wave in the Administration's attack on a woman's right to choose.
[No, it is not a concern for those Americans who understand that a mother’s health is not improved by her decision to end her child's life. No need to comment, as the new administration is committed to abortion in all cases and circumstances.]

I believe that the abortions protected by that decision should be rare and safe, but that it should be a decision made between a woman, her family and her doctor, based on her own health, her personal beliefs and her faith.
[There is no defense for an indefensible act, which is precisely what every intended abortion is. The real decision involves choosing evil or choosing good.]

To this end, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 1964, the Freedom of Choice Act. H.R. 1964 would, for the first time, codify the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by Roe v. Wade. [There is no constitutional right to abortion.]

The bill would bar all levels of government from interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy.
[Here is what I believe the congresswoman really means: The bill would bar all levels of government from restricting the license to choose to bear a child or terminate that child’s life.]

H.R. 1964 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. However, it appears that this legislation will not be acted upon before the end of the current legislative session.

Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind should legislation affecting a woman's right to choose come before me in the House of Representatives.
[Perhaps she will keep his thoughts in mind, but it will not be for the purpose of opposing the license to abort babies. She has already made this perfectly clear.]

While it sickens me to read such egregious bias against truth, it equally disturbs me that we pro-lifers allow such deconstruction to continue unchallenged. What each of us needs to do is what I have tried to do in this commentary.

Read the words, become familiar with the actual meaning of those words and then challenge those who support abortion to speak clearly. Of course, when they do, many will become converts to the pro-life position, but it’s up to us to challenge their every misleading phrase, comment or public pronouncement.

Otherwise, we will be the unmistakably cowardly who, by our silence and tolerance, permitted our foes to pursue their ongoing effort to deceive, corrupt and otherwise mold the culture into one based on hatred for God’s gift of life.

Back to news