web1_Stagg-Bowl.jpg

Mount Union beats Mary Hardin-Baylor for D3 title

web1_TTL121617CarePackage3.jpg

Penn State Wilkes-Barre students donate food, toys for local families

<p>It&#8217;s been almost 45 years since the Supreme Court cobbled together a Frankenstein version of a Constitutional right in Roe v. Wade, and despite repeated promises by Republican administrations to overturn the precedent, it is still legal to empty the contents of your womb at will, with a few notable restrictions. If I sound flippant, I&#8217;m sorry. If I sound bitter, I am. If I sound resigned, I was.</p><p>That is, until this week when something happened that completely changed the rules of engagement. The Pennsylvania House approved a bill known as SB 3 which would do a number of things, the most important of which is to ban dismemberment abortions and push back the date at which you can get an abortion from the current 24 weeks to 20 weeks.</p><p>The fact that this is at all controversial blows my mind. Whenever Pro Lifers argue in favor of restrictions, our opponents bring up the same stale argument: who knows when life begins? When we direct them to page 137 of the text &#8220;It&#8217;s Biology, Dammit!,&#8221; which says &#8220;life begins at conception, dummy,&#8221; they move on to the next stage of denial which is some variation of &#8220;don&#8217;t deny me the right to do what I want with my own body.&#8221; It&#8217;s as if we want them to surrender a kidney, half a lung and part of their large intestine when they reach 18.</p><p>So for the sake of argument, let&#8217;s agree that we don&#8217;t know when life actually begins. It would appear to me, however, that by 20 weeks, it&#8217;s pretty much &#8220;begun.&#8221;</p><p>Which brings us to SB 3. The PA legislation doesn&#8217;t quote the Book of Genesis. It simply holds that a baby who has been growing inside the womb for five months &#8212; more than half of a normal pregnancy &#8212; should not be terminated except for the most compelling reasons. SB 3 allows for an abortion where the mother&#8217;s life is in danger, or where a continued pregnancy could result in &#8220;substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.&#8221; So a woman who could die if she doesn&#8217;t have the abortion is still able to get one, as is a woman whose health might be seriously threatened. This is no change from current legislation.</p><p>But apparently, it&#8217;s not enough to give women these protections. They&#8217;re angry that they don&#8217;t get an exception for rape or incest (which they didn&#8217;t have before SB 3). As I mentioned recently on television, the child is as much a victim of the rape as the woman, and shouldn&#8217;t bear the punishment for the violent manner of her creation.</p><p>Then you have the anger over a lack of exception for fetal abnormalities, a major reason that physicians have protested against the 20-week cut off. That&#8217;s when pregnant women generally have their ultrasounds to determine if the baby is afflicted with some congenital defect, the most common of which is Down syndrome.</p><p>Having a Downs baby does not result in the death of the mother, nor in most cases does it seriously compromise her health. And yet statistics show that up to 90 percent of women who are told they are carrying Downs babies choose to abort. That is a chilling statistic which is very close to the sex selection statistics in countries where female babies are far less desirable than males.</p><p>Another source of outrage is the criminalization of dismemberment abortions, or as I like to call them &#8220;Gosnell Specials.&#8221; While some doctors say that this is the safest form of abortion for the mother, I marvel at the ability of our society to consider the vivisection of a 5 or 6 or 8 month old fetus as a civilized, much less necessary, act.</p><p>Alabama recently elected a man to the Senate who has little to no opposition to late-term abortions, and who would not support the PA bill. When asked whether he was in favor of a 20-week ban, he replied &#8220;&#8221;I&#8217;m not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman&#8217;s right and her freedom to choose.&#8221;</p><p>Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf agrees, and said he would veto SB 3, which he calls &#8220;an attack on women.&#8221;</p><p>I say, bring it on. The Pro Life giant isn&#8217;t exactly sleeping, but it got a nice dose of caffeine with both SB 3 and Jones&#8217; election. The movement is not about to let the pro choice side define the debate any longer.</p><p>Opponents can complain all they want about this so-called attack on women&#8217;s health. A review of the bill shows there is ample concern for the mother&#8217;s welfare and equal concern for a child&#8217;s right to be born.</p><p>So as I said, game on Wolf. Game on, Senator-elect Jones. After 45 years, patience tends to wear out.</p><p>This resistance is woke.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/web1_flowers.jpg">
<div class="neCaption"></div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/web1_flowers.jpg</photo0><caption0></caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>Christine M. Flowers</p><p>Guest Columnist</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer and columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News. Readers may send her email at <a href="mailto:cflowers1961@gmail.com">cflowers1961@gmail.com</a>.</p></shirttailMeta></div>

Their view: Count me in on fight for abortion bill