Babies Aren’t the Only Victims of ROE Act Abortion Bill; English Is Also A Casualty

Printed from: https://newbostonpost.com/2019/06/19/babies-arent-the-only-victims-of-roe-act-abortion-bill-english-is-also-a-casualty/

“These laws passed in Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, and elsewhere are an unconstitutional attack on the fundamental rights of women. They are about prohibiting women from making personal decisions about their own bodies, their own families, and their own lives.”

—  Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, testifying before the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary, Monday, June 17, 2019

 

Give Maura Healey credit. Her arguments make no legal sense, moral sense, analytical sense, or practical sense. But at least she accurately referred to the carriers of unborn children.

They are females, which means they are either a woman (if an adult) or a girl (if a minor).

Next time, though, Healey might want to run her language by state Representative Jay Livingstone (D-Back Bay), who might be more woke than she is.

Livingstone, a sponsor of the proposed abortion-expansion bill known as the ROE Act, testified Monday about his bill as if that female thing is up in the air.

Most of the current fight is – rightly – about the provisions of the bill, which would remove virtually all remaining restrictions on abortions after 24 weeks, eliminate a current provision in Massachusetts state law requiring doctors to save the life of a baby born alive after an attempted abortion, and eliminate a requirement that girls 17 and younger get permission from a parent or from a superior court judge in order to get an abortion.

Livingstone referred to these changes as “the slight expansions of this bill.”

Why is changing existing state law a good idea? Let’s let Livingstone explain:

“The ROE Act would remove these barriers to allow more pregnant people to make the health care choice that’s best for them within our own state.”

Did you catch that? Pregnant … people.

Because we don’t want to get too specific.

Who knows who could possibly be pregnant? Why would it be just a woman or a girl?

Lest you think it’s just a slip of the tongue (or of the keyboard, since it was from a prepared text), consider these subsequent statements he made during the same three-minute presentation:

“Pregnant people deserve this choice in Massachusetts.”

“While we want to foster an environment for families to thrive, we cannot assume that all pregnant people are in a situation where they can talk to a parent or guardian about their issues.”

Although he mentioned his wife and their two young children, Livingstone was careful never to refer to the carrier of a fetus or the birther of a baby as a “mother,” a “woman,” a “girl,” or even a “female.”

This forced gender-neutrality mirrors the language of the proposed ROE Act bill, which attempts to redefine “pregnancy” as “the presence of an implanted human embryo or fetus within a person’s uterus.”

The bill also refers to “a person’s personal decision and ability to prevent, commence, terminate, or continue their own pregnancy” and, later, “A pregnant person seeking an abortion …”

Indeed, the bill uses the word “person” six times, always referring to a female but never saying that.

It is not shocking that “persons” wanting to promote the killing of more tiny human beings would also promote killing our language.

Given what they are advocating, how else can they win?

Comments

comments