Last weekend the two sides of the abortion debate had dueling marches/rallies/assemblies in the cold Arkansas January. Bless them, every one. For it takes somebody with conviction to show up when the wind is blowing ice cubes around.
We're not sure what the pro-abortion marchers were convicted about, though, because it seems their rally turned into a dog's breakfast of leftist themes scattered about like leaflets. The news side of this outfit was more well-mannered than to describe the rally as muddled, saying instead that the speech-makers at the rally "focused broadly on activism, covering a range of national and local topics."
But when everything's a priority, nothing's a priority. It seems the pro-abortion folks in Arkansas need a refresher on messaging. Their organizers might could take lessons from their counterparts, who marched the next day. The pro-life folks know that "focusing broadly" is no focus at all, so they just talked abortion.
But both sides probably took the easiest path. The pro-life people know that if they put things simply, they'll win most of the arguments. For to describe abortion is to describe an awful procedure, even if it's not a crime. At least not on the books. The pro-abortion group probably knows it's better to talk about immigration, police violence and public schools at their rally, because it might be more difficult to get people to cheer Abortion On Demand Now!
Euphemism is another trick when honestly describing your side of an argument is a sure loser. Which is why the abortion rally wasn't called The Abortion Rally, but instead the Ninth Annual Rally for Reproductive Justice. Although nobody was talking about justice for the child--er, fetus--involved in an abortion. Too complicated, that.
One of the speakers at the event even told the pro-abortion crowd when it left the rally, to "keep your head held high and remember that you are fighting for your ancestors." Some of us would rather they fought for their descendents, if any. Our ancestors were old enough to have fought for themselves.
Coincidentally, over in the General Assembly, which is meeting this month, are several anti-abortion bills wafting through various chambers and committees. To prove how welded the pro-abortion crowd has become to abortion on demand, they oppose even the most innocuous of bills, saying that any step toward protecting mom and baby is a step away from women's rights. Take, for example, this year's Senate Bill 3.
Sure, there are other anti-abortion bills in the Ledge just now, and we'll talk about them in the days to come. But Senate Bill 3 is a good place to start.
Sponsored by state Sen. Trent Garner of El Dorado, the bill would "add reporting requirements" for doctors and hospitals when a woman has complications relating to an abortion.
From the newspaper's story last Sunday by reporter Jeannie Roberts:
"SB3 would require doctors to electronically report to the state Department of Health each abortion complication within three days of diagnosis. A health facility, such as a hospital, would have 30 days after treating a patient for abortion complications to make the report.
"Information collected would include the date and type of the abortion; description of the complication; the patient's year of birth, race, marital status, and county and state of residence; the date of the first day of the patient's last menstrual period; the number of previous live births; and the number of previous induced abortions.
"The bill would not require the reporting of the names or the doctor performing the abortion of the patient receiving the abortion."
So . . . the state wants information, stats, on abortion complications and details about who is most likely to have them. The bill would also require the Department of Health to publish those stats, no names involved.
As of today, there are no such statistics kept. Not according to the state Department of Health.
Of course, the bill must be opposed. It's Foch's Maxim: Cramponnez partout, or hold fast all over.
A spokesman for--what else?--the Arkansas Coalition of Reproductive Justice said the outfit opposes the bill: "These are personal issues. These are important issues. The doctor should know what is best for that patient and the government does not know that."
Exactly the point. The government does not know that.
The government doesn't know how many, if any, abortions and/or abortion doctors and/or different abortion procedures cause more complications than others. So the government of the state of Arkansas would like to keep track, sans names of patients. If it sounds like common sense, we're happy you don't misunderstand. But oppose it, the pro-abortion folks will.
Is this really the hill the pro-abortion types want to die on? Or is that metaphor a little too precise for this debate?
The spokesman refers to "important issues." You're damned right these are important issues. Important enough to keep track of.
To some, all this to-and-fro on this topic is a bunch of silliness about the viability of a critter no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. To others, though, it's a much more important matter. It's about the American Way of Death. Can we at least keep up with who, if anybody, is harmed? Other than the child, that is.
Everybody knows what happens to the child. Even if only half of us will say it aloud.
Editorial on 01/27/2019