About those ‘laws that would OK killing abortion providers’
February 28, 2011 - 1:35 pm
If Mother Jones and the Huffington Post are all that you read, you might be led to believe that pro-life groups are trying to get laws passed that would allow the killing of abortion providers. Headlines like these, and the story they festoon, are what I’m talking about:
Well, surprise surprise, the lefties lie. The bills in question have nothing to do with making a justifiable homicide out of killing abortionists. Here’s what the bills are actually supposed to do.
Americans United for Life Vice President of Legal Affairs Denise Burke tells LifeNews.com the “anti-life media once again got their facts wrong” in reporting about AUL’s “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act.”
She said the model legislation seeks to ensure that a pregnant woman and her unborn child are protected from criminal violence and that her decision to carry her child to term is respected and that the model legislation was drafted in direct response to the well-documented and growing problem of pregnancy-related violence against women.
AUL’s “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act” does not allow the killing of abortion practitioners but, as written, provides that a pregnant woman may use force to protect her unborn child when she reasonably believes that unlawful force is threatening her unborn child and that her use of force is immediately necessary to protect her unborn child. The language explicitly limits the permitted use of force to a pregnant woman and does not expand it to third parties. Thus, under the express terms of AUL’s carefully crafted and narrow language, the “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act” could not be used to justify criminal violence against abortion providers or anyone else.
The AUL law, as it strikes me, is intended to boost both a woman’s choice to carry her child to term, and her inherent right of self-defense. Which of these do the HuffPosters and Mother Jonesers find so problematic as to warrant a smear campaign?