Congratulations to the U.S. House for taking the moral high ground last week in passing legislation to stop the killing of some unborn babies.
The bill has the Orwellian-sounding title: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Who could be against protecting such children?
Regrettably, most Democrats are, including New Hampshire's U.S. Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Annie Kuster.
The two apparently agree with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who said she couldn't (or wouldn't) discuss the morality of dismembering viable unborn babies because it is on "sacred ground," according to a Human Events column.
That is the point with many on the "pro-choice" side of this battle. They are so locked into their view of privacy-over-all ("sacred ground") that no amount of medical evidence compiled since Roe v. Wade will sway them. And neither, apparently, will the horror stories of born-alive babies murdered after botched abortions by the now-convicted Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia.
Said National Right to Life Committee President Carol Tobias, "The Obama White House, and all but a handful of House Democrats, fought for essentially unlimited abortion in the sixth month or later, despite growing public awareness of the violence perpetrated by late-term abortionists such as Kermit Gosnell and the pain they inflict on unborn babies."
"As a legislator," Tobias noted, "Barack Obama said he would trust abortionists to take good care of any babies born alive - he would trust the Gosnells, in other words. Obama's veto threat harkened back to his opposition to the ban on partial-birth abortion, and his attacks on the Supreme Court for upholding the ban on that brutal method of late abortion."
We know. This is all so unpleasant an issue to consider on a beautiful early summer day. But it is an issue that is literally life and death. When else should it be considered?