Originally posted at American Thinker. blog
Missouri’s Senate Bill 793 has concluded, “The life of each human being begins at conception.” Not only that, the Missouri law contends abortion terminates “The life of a separate, unique, living human being.”
As a result, “Missouri abortion clinics will face new mandates to offer women ultrasound images and heartbeats of their fetuses because of legislation allowed to become law by Governor Jay Nixon.”
Presented with the bill, pro-abortion Governor Jay Nixon (D) withheld “both his signature and his veto.” Nixon’s neutral stance indicated agreement that life begins at conception, making way for the Missouri legislature’s answer to the “When does life begin?” question to officially become state law.
Missouri is mucking up the guilt-free abortion works by making it mandatory for providers to inform women that the children they plan to dispose of are, in fact, alive. It is now legal to impose the burden of truth on Missourians trying to attain simple, guilt-free, morally relativistic abortions.
Presently, abortion clinics hand out pamphlets that pose questions in the following way:
Is having an abortion safe?
Yes. Statistically, it is nine times more dangerous to go through childbirth than to have an abortion. Surgical abortion in a licensed facility … especially in the first three months of pregnancy when most abortions are performed is the safest outpatient surgical procedure there is.
Not to worry, the opposition is raising the argument that saying “life begins at conception” is a Christian concept that many women don’t believe in.
Henceforth, in addition to offering ultrasounds of the unborn, it will be compulsory to “prominently” present women with “life begins at conception” information printed on abortion clinic brochures in Missouri.
Paula Gianino, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region argues that the belief “life begins at conception” is not a “sentiment that all the world’s religions, or all the people in the state, believe in.” Good thing, because it’s a lot easier to end a life if you believe the target of a saline, scalpel or suction procedure isn’t actually alive.
One of the bill’s sponsors, Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke (R) contends the language on the new brochure “is not a religious,” but a “scientific statement.”
Lembke maintains that those with differing beliefs “will have to take all the information given to them and make an informed decision.” Such as: “Scientists agree that when a sperm and egg unite, a living organism results,” or the beating heart of a living child indicates life?
Even if the scientific premise is accepted, the problem arises with the words that define fetuses as the “life of a separate, unique, living human being.” Those opposed to the bill claim words like that are based on a “religious” tenet. Debate rages over whether an entity possessing inimitable DNA being suctioned from the body of a woman in a manner that insures fetal death can be defined as ending a life.
Critics of the informational Missouri abortion bill, such as Kate Lovelady of the Ethical Society of St. Louis, maintain that the “new law imposes one narrow religious view on others.” Lovejoy argues, “A lot of our members don’t believe life begins at conception – it’s much more complicated than that.”
Is Ms. Lovelady saying that killing is considered killing based purely on religious belief? Or could it be that the “You’re from Missouri and we’re going to show you” abortion bill’s opponents disagree with the law because truth makes it harder for those determined to obtain an abortion to do so without putting faith in lies?
