Liberals pick and choose from the Constitution as to which sections they claim they support. Of course, Republicans do this too. They make an overreaching law and then try to stuff it into a couple of Constitutional amendments to justify it.
Gun registration, permits and background checks aren’t actually inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment. Everybody knows you don’t need ten bullets to kill a deer.
And the NSA’s widespread surveillance of American citizens isn’t really a violation of the 4th Amendment’s guarantee that people be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. They’re only trying to protect us from terrorist attacks. In fact, they claim they’ve “thwarted” 50 such attacks since 9/11.
So, liberals argue that the Bill of Rights are not absolute. The 2nd Amendment basically says we can have a musket to hunt game, but it doesn’t promise us semi-automatic rifles with 30-round magazines. The 4th Amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from spying on everybody’s electronic lives, because a secret court said it was OK. And besides, those snooping policies save lives.
Well, one area that’s sacred ground to liberals is abortion. That’s really the only thing that they say people have an absolute right to. Women have an absolute right to murder their unborn child for whatever reason they can think of. Maybe they’re not ready for a baby. Maybe the child’s conception was an “accident.” Maybe the mother’s too young. Maybe she was raped. Maybe the child has an abnormality. Whatever the case, you don’t mess with a woman’s absolute right to choose what to do with “her body.” Even if such a provision would save lives.
I thought liberals were all about saving lives. And especially children’s lives. They’ll violate people’s Constitutional liberties in order to “save lives.” But when it comes to abortion, they’d rather 54 million babies be butchered than interfere with women’s supposed right to murder their unborn kids. They’d go so far as to say that not allowing a woman to murder her unborn child, even as late as 20 weeks into her pregnancy, is “morally outrageous.”
That’s just what Representative Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York said regarding the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The House actually passed the law yesterday. The law prohibits abortions after 20 weeks. Here’s what Nadler said:
“Here we go again. Every single year we have to go through the same nonsense with the same morally presumptuous, morally arrogant attitude that we know better. ‘We know better than women and their doctors. We know better about their health care. We know better about their moral choices in very personal decisions.’ This bill is particularly morally outrageous. It is also particularly unconstitutional. It is morally outrageous, frankly.”
Now, I’m not a big supporter of the bill, because I’m more of an all-or-nothing type of person when it comes to issues like abortion. And not only that, I think states should work individually to enact their own laws that would treat abortion as murder. We don’t need a federal law that deals with murder.
However, if the bill is signed into law, it would potentially save thousands of babies’ lives per year. That is obviously a good thing. And I don’t understand how anyone who pretends to care about protecting the children from guns or terrorist attacks can also be happy to watch tens of millions of babies be slaughtered in the name of protecting women’s rights. Twenty kids get murdered in Sandy Hook, and liberals go berserk with trying to take everybody’s guns away. Fifty-four million babies get slaughtered in abortion clinics, and liberals celebrate “women’s rights.” What exactly is “morally outrageous?”