- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

Judge's ruling echoes 'Planned Parenthood instruction manual'


Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0


A recent ruling by a federal judge followed almost exactly “Planned Parenthood’s instruction manual,” contends a pro-life lawyer.

“Don’t call it ‘abortion.’ Call it ‘abortion care,'” said Walter M. Weber of the American Center for Law and Justice on the organization’s website.

“The word ‘abortion’ has ugly connotations. ‘Care,’ however, has a positive feel,” he said, referring to a preliminary order by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Barrett that ensured abortionists weren’t restricted by a new Ohio law.

“Apparently the abortion lobby did some polling and decided that it was better to pitch abortion as a form of ‘care’ (as with ‘reproductive care’). So starting some years back, abortion proponents began using the phrase ‘abortion care’ in place of ‘abortion’ whenever they could,” he wrote.

Ohio’s Heartbeat Protection Act, which Weber helped draft, requires abortionists to test for a heartbeat and inform expectant mothers.

“The most controversial new provision declares that if a heartbeat is found, the baby is legally protected from abortion – i.e., it is a crime to abort a baby with a heartbeat (absent a serious threat to the mother),” he explained.

He said in addition to changing “abortion” to “abortion care,” abortionists and their supporters, in this case the judge, did more.

“The slogan, ‘Abortion stops a beating heart,’ has long been an effective way to highlight the injustice and inhumanity of abortion,” he said.

Bennett, instead, used the “technical” “cardiac activity.”

“Don’t even admit there is a ‘heart,'” Weber continued. “Judge Bennett does not even refer to the organ producing the ‘cardiac activity’ as a heart. Instead, he refers (p. 3) to ‘cells that form the basis for the development of the heart later in gestation.’ In other words, there’s no heart there, just some ‘cells’ that are the ‘basis’ for what will ‘later’ develop into a heart. (Never mind that those cells are pumping blood!)”

Then there was Bennett’s tactic to give abortionists more than they were entitled to have.

“The challengers requested a preliminary injunction against the heartbeat law. To get it, they must show a ‘likelihood’ of success in the lawsuit. All Judge Bennett had to do to grant their wish was find such a ‘likelihood.’ But instead, he declared that the challengers ‘are certain to succeed’ (p. 6). Has he prejudged the case?”

ACLJ said the lawsuit against the Ohio law is not over, and it plans to file arguments as the case proceeds.


Article printed from WND:

URL to article: