Rep. Stacey Newman is once again doing her best to be seen as Missouri’s version of Wendy Davis, the obscure Texas legislator who rode an abortion issue to national prominence. This time, she’s seizing on the comments of Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger, who said, like buying a car, getting an abortion wasn’t something you should rush into.
Here’s the exchange, via Mother Jones:
Newman: Your original premise, that a woman who is receiving any type of care with her pregnancy, regardless of what decisions are involved, is somehow similar to purchasing a key for an automobile—
Gatschenberger: If you were listening to my explanation, it had nothing to do [with] that…In making a decision—not making a life-changing decision—but making a decision to buy a car, I put research in there to find out what to do.
Newman: Do you believe that buying a car is in any way related to any type of pregnancy decision?
Gatschenberger: Did I say that?
Newman: That’s what I’m asking you.
Gatschenberger: I did not say that. I’m saying my decision to accomplish something is, I get the input in it. And that’s what this bill does, is give more information for people.
Newman: So you’re assuming that women who are under care…for their pregnancy, need additional information that they’re not already receiving?
Gatschenberger: I’m just saying they have the opportunity, it increases the opportunity. If you want to know what this bill does, [it] increases the opportunity.
Now, I could argue that women who are under care for their pregnancy “need additional information that they’re not already receiving,” especially if they are receiving their care at a Planned Parenthood facility.
But let’s focus on the outrage that followed in the wake of Gatschenberger’s comments.
I’m up for being part of faux outrage as much as the next guy, but I need to know the agenda first. Am I to be outraged because buying a car is a far more difficult decision than aborting a baby, or because it’s far more difficult to have an abortion than buy a car?
Some progressives will tell you that getting an abortion is no big deal. It’s a “rite of passage.” After all, it’s a not like you’re killing a person. It’s more like a “pre-sentient cluster of cells,” right?
No different than a tumor, as pro-abortion feminist and psychologist Florence Thomas said:
After the doctor had dismembered her unborn child, Thomas says she felt “a relief. An immense relief. This tumor went away, disappeared. I could go back to living.”
She’s not the only person who has made that claim. I’ve been told that by the pro-abortion left for years.
And really, you don’t need that much information to decide whether you need to jettison a tumor. It’s not alive. It’s just a clump of cells, no different than cancer.
So, am I supposed to be outraged because buying a car is harder than deciding to get an abortion?
No, I don’t think that’s it. I suspect I’m supposed to be outraged because getting an abortion is a very difficult decision, much harder than buying a car.
But that brings up a question. Why?
Why is it harder to get an abortion than buy a car?
Is it because you know that you might regret getting an abortion?
Is it because you are worried what others might think?
Or is it because deep down, you know you are ending a life?
If getting an abortion is a more difficult decision than buying a car because a life is on the line, that’s a big departure from the traditional rhetoric of the pro-abortion crowd.
And, if that’s the fact, shouldn’t government ensure that all the relevant information is known? Why does it take decades to execute someone convicted of a capital offense? Because the legal system makes the best possible effort to make sure all the facts are known and they aren’t going to regret killing an innocent.
Am I to be outraged because Gatschenberger wants to apply the same thinking to abortion?
Of course, there could be other reasons for the outrage. I don’t intend to create a false dilemma.
Women could be upset about being compared to a car. Rep.
Davis Newman tweeted this yesterday:
Sorry, but that’s a
Gatschenberger didn’t compare women to a car. He simply said important decisions merit consideration over a period of time and as much data on the subject as possible.
Am I supposed to be outraged about that? Why?
Or am I supposed to be outraged that a man dares to tell a woman what she can do with her body? But Gatschenberger isn’t advocating control over a woman’s body. He’s trying to protect the unborn child’s body from being dismembered.
There’s so many opportunities to be outraged, but I choose none of the above. I choose to be outraged over the fact that while people are working to make abortion illegal, there’s not enough work being done to end abortion.
There’s a difference.