On March 22, during her MSNBC show, Rachel Maddow said, “In South Dakota today, Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard signed the nation’s most draconian anti-abortion bill, just like he said he would. And never mind the $4 million the state says it may have to spend to defend the law in court.”
So Rachel, does that mean a bill that abolishes the death penalty is draconian? Sparing a serial killer’s life is humane but saving an innocent human life is draconian? As for the costs, Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, the main sponsor of the law, correctly pointed out to the Huffington Post that it would be money well spent “to prevent the 800 or so abortions done each year in South Dakota.” And that “donations are already coming into to [sic] defend the law.”
About the bill, Maddow reasons (and I use the word reason lightly), “It forces women to also consult with a so-called pregnancy crisis center before they are allowed to move forward as well. For those of you who have never heard of a pregnancy crisis center, they are essentially fake quack medical clinics run by abortion opponents. They are usually designed to make women think that they are consulting a center that provides abortions, when in reality, what they are in for is anti-abortion fake counseling. What do I mean by that? Well, one pregnancy crisis center in South Dakota gives this description of the morning-after pill. Quote, the tiny baby will die.”
Fake quack medical clinics? Fake counseling? Rachel, if you’d take the time to educate yourself, you’d know that, in many cases, a morning-after pill causes the death of a human life after conception by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. You’d also know that a fertilized egg is a human life. And you and your pro-abortion friends don’t own the word baby. A tiny human life is a tiny baby.
Back to Maddow: “So South Dakota wins the prize today for big government conservativism’s most extreme new anti-abortion law.”
Sorry Rachel, but restricting the killing of innocent human life is not “big government” by any fact-based definition of government. You keep on tryin’, though, you’ve got spunk!
Maddow then follows the usual pro-abortion talking points: she cites the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute for a few statistics and complains about Republicans trying to defund Planned Parenthood. She asks her viewers, “What did you think the 2010 elections were about? Did you think the 2010 elections were about jobs? The Republicans who got elected in such overwhelming numbers in those elections apparently did not think they were elected because of jobs. They thought they were elected to crackdown on access to abortion and abortion rights. That must be it. Because for politicians who are supposedly in such a rush to fix the economy, these guys have a ton of time on their hands to worry about monitoring every last pregnancy in America, among other things that also have nothing to do with creating jobs.”
The 2010 elections were only about jobs? If you say so, Rachel. But you might want to go back and watch some of the many demonstrations against the health care bill. Or some of the many town hall meetings that dealt with a wide array of issues. Politicians have many responsibilities that have nothing to do with creating jobs. And securing the protection of the right to life for every human life is an important one.
