Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Murphy, the Congressman from Planned Parenthood

President of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards announced recently her intention to campaign for President Barack Obama FULL TIME, and no wonder.

Planned Parenthood -- the largest abortion provider on the planet, with the possible exception of China’s pro-abortion fascist state controlled facilities – is big business. Every single day, Planned Parenthood receives more than $1.34 million public tax dollars. Abortion procedures account for 46% of all Planned Parenthood clinic revenue. Ms. Richards last year pulled in a sumptuous $400,000 paycheck as her business systematically aborted over 320,000 children each year.

Here in Connecticut, the Democratic Party from Chicago has managed to tag as “extremists” politicians and potential politicians whose views on abortion fall short of those of Planned Parenthood.

Congressman Chris Murphy, who this year appears to be running on the Planned Parenthood ticket for the U.S. Senate, has successfully managed to paint his Republican opponent Linda McMahon as an “extremist” who, once in office, will struggle mightily to dismantle Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that opened the abortion Pandora's box in 1973.

Along with its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the court found in the aura of rights surrounding the U.S. Constitution a constitutional right of privacy mitigated by two legitimate interests vested in the states: The individual states, the court ruled, could regulate abortion to protect prenatal life and women’s health. Both interests, the court said, become more compelling as the course of the pregnancy progresses, which is why the court tied state regulation of abortion to pregnancy trimesters.

Though many jurists have found fault with the high court’s reasoning – deducing a constitutional right from the aura of rights surrounding the constitution strikes some court critics as a jurisprudential séance – it would be nearly impossible, as a political matter, to overthrow the practical results that have issued over time from the court’s ruling.  The bugaboo that Republican “extremists” could in any real sense abolish all legal abortions, however, continues to be a useful tool for Democratic demagogues courting what they suppose to be the “woman’s vote” in elections. The national Democratic Party, during its convention this year, elevated what had been an art into a science.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, various states did create statutes regulating abortion, especially in the case of minors. The Court upheld the basic right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. At the same time, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a semi-autonomous division of Planned Parenthood, “the court expanded the ability of the states to enact all but the most extreme restrictions on women's access to abortion.”

Note should be taken here of Guttmacher’s use of the word “extreme.” The “most common” restrictions -- parental notification, consent requirements for minors, state-sponsored counseling, waiting periods and limitations on public funding – are not considered extreme, except by special interests such as Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider whose business bottom line is reduced by any legal and reasonable exception individual states choose to adopt in accordance with Roe v. Wade and other rulings by the Supreme Court.

Along with forty other states, Connecticut statutes specifically prohibit abortion after viability unless an abortion is necessary to preserve a woman’s life or health; ten states lack such a provision in their laws. Connecticut, among four other states, affirmatively protects a woman’s right to an abortion.  Along with thirty other states, Connecticut laws require women to receive state-mandated information and materials concerning fetal development, prenatal care, and other related information. Minors are prohibited from obtaining abortions without parental consent or notice in thirty-nine states, and while Connecticut is not among them, the state does require minors seeking abortions to receive counseling that includes a discussion of the possibility of consulting her parents.

Statutory laws regulating abortion throughout the United States effectively mark the boundaries of “extremism” with respect to abortion. Connecticut statutes are mildly restrictive. Planned Parenthood opposes all and every restriction on abortion, however mild -- an extreme position. To the extent that Mr. Murphy’s position on abortion restrictions patterns that of Planned Parenthood, his positions will also be extreme, as are those of Mr. Obama.

Mrs. McMahon’s views on reasonable abortion restrictions are inscrutable.

Last week, one reporter asked high officials in the Obama administration to cite one non-extreme restriction on abortion opposed by Ms. Richards that the president might consider adopting. We’ll get back to you, said Mr. Obama’s Chicago operation. Much to his relief, Mr. Murphy has been spared the same question.

One should not expect from Connecticut’s left of center media probing questions directed at members of the state’s congressional delegation, all Democrats, who hold the same extreme views on abortion as those of Ms. Richards – all of whom, including Mr. Murphy,  have received a 100% rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) -- for the state’s media have bought the Democratic propaganda peddled by such as Mr. Murphy: Any restriction on abortion is extreme that restricts any abortion in any state, at any time, for any reason.

Also extreme, in Mr. Murphy’s view, are politicians and obstructionists who impede his path to the U.S. Senate.
Post a Comment