MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

What’s Wrong With This Ad?

April 20th, 2007 Visited 2050 times, 1 so far today

According to Earth Times, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) have a problem with a ad campaign being run by The Second Look Project– sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Their problem, they do not want ads that are not “factually accurate” to be displayed.  Specifically, they believe that only government health organizations should be able to relay health and medical related messages, and since these ads talk about a health procedure they should be banned:

One of the ads reads: “myth: abortion is legal only in the first three months of pregnancy. fact: it’s legal for the entire nine months for virtually any reason.” The other states, “The human heart begins to beat at 22 days; Roe v. Wade says a doctor can stop it for the next 244.”

The reality is that abortion is not legal for the entire nine months for “virtually” any reason, but is legal only in very limited circumstances. States can and have restricted or prohibited abortion after viability, except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health. Also, thirty-four states currently enforce parental consent or notification laws for minors seeking an abortion. Moreover, there is no language in Roe v. Wade stating that a doctor can stop a human heart for 244 days after it begins to beat. Rather, the case provides that before viability a woman may have an abortion free from government interference.

However, the problem is on CREW’s end.  Since abortion itself was a right created by the Supreme Court, it is legal the entire 9 months.  Even the recently approved Partial Birth Abortion Ban doesn’t prevent abortion specifically, just a particular procedure. The court said as long as the termination happens in the womb and not by this particular procedure it’s still ok.

Since most states prohibition on late term abortions has been forced to include terminology talking about “the health of the mother,” this phrase has been twisted to mean virtually anything the woman wants it to mean so that she can kill her child.

We are in a clash of worldviews– the last thing that the pro-abortion side wants to hear is a well reasoned opinion for saving life because they already have a tough case justifying a woman’s selfishness over a baby’s life.

Comments

9 Comments

RSS
  • Mary says on: April 20, 2007 at 9:39 am

     

    Way to go Second Look! This is an awesome campaign, I’m glad the competition is sitting up and taking notice b/c it will gain the whole campaign that much more attention.

    There is still so much ignorance concerning abortions…thanks for keeping us informed, MIn!

  • Mrs. Meg Logan says on: April 20, 2007 at 9:55 am

     

    Sounds like someone wants to step on the First Amendment. Anyone ought to be able to put out commercials. Though it would stink if all the commercials were just blatant lies. (propaganda), hmm come to think of it, most of them are!

    Mrs. meg Logan

  • Stephen Kingston says on: April 20, 2007 at 10:27 am

     

    States can and have restricted or prohibited abortion after viability, except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health

    In the UK abortions are only legal *before* viability for these reasons. The problem with the regulations is that protection of the woman’s health includes mental health. So it only takes two doctors to agree that the woman will suffer psychilogical harm in being forced to go through with the pregnancy, and then an abortion may be given. The result is virtually abortgion on demand.

    So you are right to point out the problem with the argument. The question that might be asked is why the US law does not at least follow the UK law in applying this test before viability!

    As for the hair splitting over who is stopping the baby’s heart… perhaps we should just compromise and say: before the age of viability, a woman may stop her baby’s heart free from government interference.

  • MInTheGap says on: April 20, 2007 at 10:55 am

     

    The reason why it’s not in U.S. is complicated, but boils down to the fact that it wasn’t a law that gave “the right to abortion” but a judicial dictate. Judges decided that the states did not have jurisdiction based on a contorted and twisted view of some of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, women (based on an invented “right to privacy”) were given the right to abort by judicial decree.

    There have been many attempts to regulate abortion out of existence– but most that have made it to the Supreme Court have to have a “health” exception in order to pass Constitutional muster in the Court’s opinion.

    It will take more Strict Constructionist judges to roll that back.

  • Mrs. Meg Logan says on: April 20, 2007 at 12:33 pm

     

    what is “viability”??

    Meg

  • MInTheGap says on: April 20, 2007 at 1:19 pm

     

    Usually they define viability as the ability for the baby to live outside the womb (whether it can live on its own).

  • Mrs. Meg Logan says on: April 20, 2007 at 4:33 pm

     

    Stephen,

    Did I misunderstand you somehow? You said “As for the hair splitting over who is stopping the baby’s heart… perhaps we should just compromise and say: before the age of viability, a woman may stop her baby’s heart free from government interference.”

    Did you mean that we ought to compromise and accept pre-viability abortions??

    Did I hear that right? :ermm:

    Meg

  • Leticia says on: April 20, 2007 at 9:36 pm

     

    The only I am able to add, is that abortion should be outlawed, period. Life begins at conception.

    I am proud of the many build-boards around town that are promoting pro-life. They make a powerful statement.

    Murder is murder, regardless of the technical terms being used to mislead and misrepresent the heinous act.

  • Stephen Kingston says on: April 21, 2007 at 3:52 pm

     

    Meg, No I did not say we should compromise on the issue – only on the wording.

    The disputed wording says that the doctor may stop the baby’s heart for however 224 days after it starts beating. The group disputing the claim say that (before the age of viability at least) what is at issue is the lack of government interference.

    So it follows that what they mean is that a woman (or a doctor) may stop her child’s heart free from government interference… that is what the ad should perhaps say!

    Why this is any better I do not know, but it would deal with their objection (and reveal the attempted distraction from the real issue).

MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

%d bloggers like this: