Skip to main content

Abortion And Blumenthal’s Utopia

“Abortion rights” – which is to say unrestricted abortion – figures prominently in U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s utopia.

A bill introduced by Mr. Blumenthal, The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013, would affirm unrestricted abortion by making it impossible for states to regulate abortion providers, chiefly Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. To Blumenthal watchers, a bill preventing various actors in the abortion drama, including states and the federal government, from propounding any rules governing abortion at any stage of the birth process for any reason would seem to be out of character for Mr. Blumenthal, who spent much of his two decades as Attorney General in Connecticut suing businesses for having violated regulations while proposing bills to Connecticut’s General Assembly that would further hobble a Connecticut economy already gagging on needless regulations.

Only a moral struggle – a battle involving angels of light and devils of darkness – could justify such a sharp reversal of character.

Mr. Blumenthal carried both the virtues and vices he nurtured as Attorney General into the U.S. Senate when in 2011 he displaced U.S. Senator Chris Dodd, who left office after having said he would never accept a position as a lobbyist and then accepted a position as the chief lobbyist of the Motion Picture Association of America, demonstrating that if you stuff a politician’s conscience with enough money, the pillars of his moral universe will collapse under the weight.

One example of Mr. Blumenthal’s moral rectitude may serve for many. Following the untimely death of Cecil the Lion, poached in Africa by an American dentist, Mr. Blumenthal drafted a bill and offered the following statement: “The hunting and poaching of endangered species is a reprehensible and repugnant act. The death of this beloved lion was a preventable tragedy that demonstrates the urgent need to protect precious – and all too often vulnerable – wildlife. We cannot continue to allow innocent animals to be threatened by trophy killing – we must ensure that generations to come can experience and enjoy everything nature has to offer. I am proud to join my colleagues on this measure that will provide critical protections to animals across the globe.”

The attentive reader will note that Mr. Blumenthal’s media release is stuffed with moral gunpowder: “reprehensible and repugnant act… preventable tragedy… trophy killing… proud to join colleagues.” More than words, these are ethical shields designed to fend off any defense made by a “poacher”; we all want to place ourselves on the side of moralizing angels, do we not?  “A tear for Cecil” is itself a moral argument that overcomes most objections. Mr. Blumenthal has over the years mastered this useful rhetorical tactic. He may be the best moral gunslinger in Connecticut.
Abortion on demand – specifically, abortion after the 20th week of a pregnancy when, scientist tell us, the infant in the womb senses pain – presents a difficulty for proponents of abortion such as Mr. Blumenthal. A regulation limiting abortion to the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy, it will be noted, is not, as abortion extremists would have it, a denial of a “right to abortion.” It is a regulatory provision that recognizes a developmental process in which a fetus, passing through an early stage in the pregnancy, becomes at a later stage before birth what we might justly call, for lack of a better word, a baby. Pregnant mothers and their doctors frequently refer to fetal life in the womb beyond 20 weeks as a “baby,” which is more than a term of endearment; it is an accurate description of life in the womb at that stage of pregnancy. Ultrasound images do not lie, and a picture of the 20 week old baby is worth a thousand words.

The ultrasound pictures seriously undermine any argument to the effect that abortion is not then taking of a human life, which is why abortion providers make great efforts to purchase the efforts of senators like Mr. Blumenthal to prevent the passage of laws requiring Planned Parenthood from being compelled to share ultrasound images with its clients before preforming an abortion. “It's not what you don't know that kills you,” said Mark Twain, “it's what you know for sure that ain't true.” Ultrasounds place seeds of doubt in the minds of Planned Parenthood’s clients. Anyone, including scientists, who has seen an ultrasound of an unborn baby at 20 weeks knows it ain’t true that the picture shows a mass of undifferentiated protoplasm.

Videos widely circulated within the past few weeks showing Planned Parenthood personnel dickering with sting operators pretending to be clients interested in purchasing baby body parts for scientific purposes may possibly convince some senators who had seen the videos – though not, of course, Mr. Blumenthal – that high officials in Planned Parenthood also know what every mother knows who has carried a baby for 20 weeks or more. Indeed, the merchants of baby parts use ultrasound so that they may deliver their product to their purchaser without “crunching” the goods.

This time around, its’s going to be a little difficult for the dry-eyed Mr. Blumenthal to assume the moral high ground in his defense of Planned Parenthood officials who, while sipping drinks and munching on salad, assure clients in the market for baby body parts that they can easily convince officiating abortionists to re-orient the late term baby in the uterus so that the corpse might be delivered without “crunching” deliverable body parts. Any Attorney General worth his pay grade could tell Mr. Blumenthal that this process violates federal law, if not Mr. Blumenthal’s too tender conscience.      


Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p