The effort by Democrats to marginalize pro-life members of Congress by characterizing their beliefs as unacceptable continued yesterday when Democratic Rep. Norma Torres referred to Republican colleagues as “sex-starved males” for opposing a move by pro-choice members to block the Trump administration from enforcing a rule that protects health care providers who refuse to participate in services, such as abortion, that go against their beliefs.
NORMA TORRES: “Mr. Speaker, it is tiring to hear from so many sex-starved males on this floor talk about a woman’s right to choose.” pic.twitter.com/V2CS1BhK7U
— JM Rieger (@RiegerReport) June 12, 2019
The California Democrat’s remarks followed Rep. Ross Spano (R-Fla.) blasting the bill for allowing federal funding to be used for abortions.
“For more than 40 years, this country operated under the policy that not one cent of taxpayer money can be used to fund abortion. We are a nation that deeply values religious liberty,” he said.
Well, most of us do. But when the right of a woman to abort her child is at stake, many Democrats refuse to recognize our fundamental rights.
Rep. Spano continued:
This rule further protects Americans’ tax dollars being forced to subsidize entities that kill unborn children. Accordingly, I’m fully supportive of Rep. Roby’s amendment that we will debate this afternoon to strike the language that would halt this important rule and the other amendments that will restore pro-life policies to this legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues to support these provisions.
That’s when Torres made her “sex-starved male” crack. It’s an interesting characterization of the opposition because I always thought that abortion had absolutely nothing to do with sex — especially as it relates to the lack of sex by men. If men don’t have sex with women, one would think women couldn’t get pregnant. Wouldn’t that make Torres and other abortion extremists happy?
Torres may not realize it or accept it, but it actually takes two human beings — a man and a woman — to make a baby. No matter how inconvenient that fact may be for some women, it makes the argument that a woman can do whatever she wants with her own body with no thought or consideration given to her lover or mate — or the life she is carrying — ring hollow.
Torres holds the extremist pro-choice position on the abortion issue and should hardly be telling men — or anyone else — to sit down and shut up. Questioning the legitimacy of the assertion of religious liberty in the argument only makes Torres look and sound shallow and closed minded.