A Florida Planned Parenthood official just stood in front of the Florida legislature to advance the argument that perhaps some life is at the whim of the living — “legitimate life,” for a perfectly representative description of her argument; there is no daylight between her testimony and an advocacy of decriminalizing murder.
If a child brought into the world under such circumstances is unworthy of life via the intentions of the mother, logic dictates that the child would be placed in such limbo indefinitely, until such time as the mother chooses to kill it. Two minutes later, twenty-five years later: if this monstrous woman could shape a society according to her testimony, then the mother would necessarily have a permanent right to slaughter her child.
Further: changing her mind, at any point, would change nothing.
If the mother decided she no longer wished the child to be dead, the logic of this “Legitimate Life” testimony — that some life is at the whim of the living — requires that the mother could always change her mind once again.
Which brings us to this: a government-funded organization just sent a representative to testify that she is not entirely sure a mother does not have an inalienable right to murder; the president whose administration funds her organization has expressed the exact same sentiments, and in fact voted on them — several times.
An honest culture, an honest media would consider this distinction:
— Todd Akin expressed an opinion supported by no one of his party, that was a part of no platform, that virtually no one alive had ever heard expressed before, whereas …
— This demon in Florida is not the first to equivocate on murder; she has an ally in a high place, and belongs to a billion-dollar organization that has equivocated on “legitimate life” frequently and publicly.
One of these incidents deserves a national conversation — especially during the trial of Kermit Gosnell, a man who actually acted on the theory of “legitimate life,” and likely murdered hundreds.
But the other one got it.