Who's Being Extreme?


The elite media is fond of characterizing President Bush as “an extreme conservative” or “far right,” and they couldn’t be more wrong. Worse, they completely ignore the true extremism of Democratic Party leaders, presidential contenders and the many leftist constituency groups supporting them.


As the individual who sent me an e-mail including this definition observed, just how debased must our culture be even to be debating fine lines over this hideous, abominable procedure? You will observe that under this test the baby’s life is protected based on how far it has traveled through the mother’s body on the way to delivery. How can right-thinking people even consider making life determinations on this basis?

Indeed the only difference between partial-birth abortion and abortion proper is the former’s visibility. If the fetus is hidden well within the womb, I suppose it’s out of sight, out of mind. The inescapable conclusion is that there is no moral difference between the two “types” of abortion, which is why it troubles me that we get so worked up over the partial-birth variety and other abortions. Don’t get me wrong. I’ll take what I can get, and the outlawing of the partial-birth procedure is a good start, but as a society we are sadly fooling ourselves if we actually believe there is any ethical distinction between the two different types of baby extermination.

Yet even this visibly grotesque procedure is not sufficiently repugnant to some in the Democratic Party to warrant legal intervention to protect the baby’s life. The convenience of the mother, the power of the women’s movement, must not be violated or diminished, no matter what the cost. Please tell me who is being extreme here?

Senator Hillary Clinton, one of the most militant pro-abortion advocates, has been quite indignant about these bills to outlaw murder of the innocent. With all due respect, what type of depravity can motivate such an indefensible position? If you think my language is offensive, I’m sorry, but I wish you had one fraction of the sensitivity for the life of the unborn.

Senator Clinton, along with many of her other pro-abortionist colleagues, has always asserted that bills to outlaw partial-birth abortion were too vague and would not sufficiently protect the life of the mother. Even Justice Sandra Day O’Connor seemed to base her majority opinion declaring the Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional on concerns for the mother’s health.

While it seems that most experts have said that health of the mother is rarely a concern in these procedures, the Senate went to painstaking lengths to craft this legislation to clarify that the procedure would not be unlawful if performed to protect the mother’s health.

Yet Senator Clinton and her colleagues still vehemently opposed the bill and even called it extreme. But how extreme is a measure that 65 to 75 percent of the American public support?

Such statistics haven’t moved the New York senator, et al, who insist that the bill might criminalize a “medically necessary” procedure — even though the medically necessary hypothetical to which she refers has to do with protecting the mother’s health, which is specifically covered by the bill.

Senator Clinton knows there is no “slippery slope” in this bill that would result in the criminalization of other abortions. Even its proponents concede it was tailor made to cover only the partial-birth procedure. But so extreme are Mrs. Clinton and her fellow travelers that their objections to the bill cannot be satisfied, because the sacrament of abortion is not to be abridged.

That, my folks, is extremism to an extreme degree. But if the left wants to insist on characterizing George Bush and pro-life advocates as extreme for persisting in the struggle to protect the lives of the unborn, I (and I’m sure most like-minded pro-lifers) will readily and enthusiastically plead guilty.