***Originally published in December of 2018***
Rekha Basu’s trashing of the heartbeat law shocked nobody. In reality, if the Republican House and Senate passed a controversial bill she applauded, there’d be serious cause for concern among conservatives.
Basu wrote that Martin Cannon, the state’s lawyer defending the heartbeat law, has a central argument that a fetus becomes a baby once it has a heartbeat. And, Basu wrote, that has never been recognized as fact.
Nevermind that there is scientific consensus that life begins at conception. The American College of Pediatricians wrote in March, 2017:
“The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created.”
It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad. The same group of people who argue it is Republicans who are science deniers over climate change are the same people who ignore science when it comes to life, gender and biology.
We’ve literally had hearings in courts in the United States where lawyers have argued chimpanzees are “legal persons.” And you’re telling me an unborn baby with a heartbeat isn’t a human?
Like a broken clock, Basu was right at least once in her piece. She wrote that if it were established that a fetus is a baby once it has a heartbeat, then the Supreme Court would not have recognized a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion Roe v. Wade. The justices on the court back then literally wrote something nearly identical.
Personhood, Basu wrote, is rhetorical, not factual. The legislature and the governor, she said, imposed their religious positions on a secular state. She added at least half of people polled believe the heartbeat law goes too far, making abortion illegal after a fetal heartbeat is detectable.
There’s nothing religious about the suggestion that life begins at the heartbeat. And if an unborn child is a human, isn’t protecting him or her exactly what the government is supposed to do in a secular state?
Basu criticized Cannon for using “emotion” in the hearing a couple weeks ago. This is rich coming from someone who so often takes emotional positions rather than logical ones. I am certain Basu has latched on to an emotional argument or two for illegal immigration rather than simply sticking to the facts of the illegal activity involved.
In her piece, Basu wrote states wouldn’t sanction legal murder. Here’s the reality for Basu and other pro-abortion activists, abortion is a premeditated killing of a human being. What else could you possibly consider an unborn child? And, if it is a premeditated killing of a human being, it is murder by definition.
Why Basu doesn’t think a state would sanction legal murder is beyond me. Especially considering she’s lived the majority of her life in a country that has indeed sanctioned legal murder.
If only Basu cared as much about unborn babies as she does about Pinky, a dog who spent two years in confinement in Des Moines.
There are a few questions left unanswered for Basu.
If it’s not a human being, what is it?
Do you support states abolishing laws that bring murder charges against people who cause a pregnant woman to lose their baby? For instance, if a pregnant woman is making one last turn before entering Planned Parenthood for her abortion, and a driver slams into her, causing her unborn baby to die, that driver can be charged with vehicular homicide. The math doesn’t add up. Basu argues viability determines life, not whether a baby is wanted.
Can the Supreme Court ever be wrong?
At what point does that unborn baby become a human being and deserve the protections promised to him or her under the Constitution?
Have you ever been invited to a ‘fetus shower?’
Is the egg of a bald eagle really more precious than the egg of a human being?
Here’s some truth for Basu. States have and continue to sanction legal murder. And they do so because people like her support abortion.
