Nedd Kareiva
Time to euthanize Roe
By Nedd Kareiva
Leslee Unruh is someone you should know. She has received harassing and threatening calls and e-mails at all times of the day and night. She has had clothes hangers placed in her mailbox with eggs splattered across her home. Her chiropractor husband has found dead animals deposited on his business property.
Joshua Heldreth is also someone you should know. He was arrested for simply bringing a cup of water to a facility he was not permitted to enter. This 10 year old was found guilty in court and ordered to perform 25 hours of community service and write an apology.
What do the above events have in common? Both individuals were in the spotlight in two historic cultural dramas over the last 12 months.
What do the above events have dissimilarly? The respondents reactions.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Joshua, here was a courageous child who chose to shine the spotlight on the starvation death of Terri Schiavo. He was heartbroken that a 41 year old woman, via a court order effective March 18th, 2005, had gone a full week sans food or water. A week later on Good Friday, Josh stepped on the property of the Pinellas County hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida to deliver a drink to Mrs. Schiavo. However, he was prevented by city police from doing so and subsequently arrested for trespassing.
13 days after the court order, Terri died from dehydration and starvation.
During this crisis which will go down as an indelible stain in U.S. history, conservatives, pro-lifers and Americans of all stripes and political parties descended on this Florida facility, praying, singing and holding signs. Citizens from all 50 states and people from around the world were frantically calling, writing, faxing and e-mailing state lawmakers, Congress, Gov. Bush, President Bush and our courts to save Terri's life. It went down as one of America's biggest landmark protests.
And Joshua's name made news in much of the media for doing what he did, shining the light of truth as to what really was happening to Terri.
However, in spite of one of the intensest, most passionate events in our history, Americans showed Herculean restraint from going ballistic on those who arguably contributed to Terri's death — Terri's husband Michael, attorney George Felos, hospice personnel, the courts, the police guarding the facility and the ACLU of Florida. Although violence is shunned by virtually all of the pro-life, pro-family community (and rightly so), it would have been understandable had someone actually entered the facility and specifically Terri's room and physically rescued her.
Of course, that should have been the job of Jeb Bush and his administration but we'll leave that go for now.
Fast forward almost a year later to when South Dakota's elected officials, in bipartisan fashion, passed a complete ban on abortion in the state, save for the life of the mother. Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota literally made the rounds and last week signed the first such state ban America.
And did I say that the sponsor of the ban in the Dakota Senate, Julie Bartling, is a Democrat?
Unlike the incredibly peaceful protests in Florida, however, the same could not be said of the pro-abortion souls who went ballistic on Mrs. Unruh, the director of a crisis pregnancy center in Sioux Falls. It didn't matter that she had no power to vote for the ban. Instead of picketing lawmakers who did so and because there is higher protection of public servants than private individuals, the likes of Planned Parenthood and NARAL chose an easy target in the Unruhs to do the damage they did, not only tangibly to the Unruh's properties but politically to the pro-abortion cause that is their sacred cow and symbolically to the political process they despise.
When push comes to shove, the evidence is clear who is peaceful when the political process (even rightly so) doesn't go their way and who is disrespectful and even violent.
Yes, there are a tiny handful of mavericks who take matters into their hands on occasion at abortion mills and those who work there. However, they greatly pale in comparison to the many intolerant individuals on the left who rip up and deface pro-life signs and posters and even instigate fisticuffs to get their points across. The posters with aborted children like Baby Malachi really stir up the emotions of the left.
Reminds me of the saying "no good deed ever goes unpunished."
Funny, I can't ever recall a time where pro-lifers snatched and tore up those carrying Planned Parenthood's "Keep Abortion Legal" and "Save Roe" signs, among others.
Time to pull the plug on Roe. Better yet, time to euthanize Roe. And do it now.
For those of you who think Roe is good, let me ask you about the signs containing the images of aborted children. Is this what you support? Would you support doing this to your pregnant dog or cat? What you do think what happen if Americans found out the local veterinarian was doing it? Would you protest? Or would you say that you support the right to do this to your dog or cat?
If you say yes to the last question, I guarantee that PETA will be knocking on your door, perhaps literally. And if the local vet is doing it, I assure you that PETA, if not the community he or she lives in, will run him or her out of town, that is if the state hasn't taken action to do so first.
And if the state catches up with that person, there is almost likely a jail cell waiting for him or her. And if there is a jail cell waiting for vets who would do such things, what excuses can you Roe supporters provide that like punishment shouldn't be provided for abortionists?
So why do you Roe backers support doing this to your fellow human beings? I don't buy your arguments like "can't afford a child now" or "have to finish school first" or that you're too young. What's that saying — "you make your own bed, you lie in it"? Grow up! Take responsibility for your actions! And yes, there are plenty of us willing to help such mothers in distress to either have the child or assist in giving him or her up for adoption.
Roe lovers, please don't give me your rape exceptions. While those are arguably traumatic, they don't erase the fact that a child is inside such women. Women who have experienced rape need a ton of love and support but they need not kill that child. The woman who goes thru with such a pregnancy and either keeps the child or surrenders him or her for adoption is much stronger mentally and likely has a higher degree of character than the one choosing to undergo a second trauma, that of having her body invaded a second time by a stranger.
Your incest exceptions don't fly either. While almost assuredly that children born out of incest should not be retained, it is neither permissible to kill that innocent being. There are plenty of Americans who would jump at the chance to adopt such children. And like the rape case, such pregnant women should get all the help and love they need. There is no need to kill, ever.
For those of you who think we're not ready to overturn Roe, I understand and respect your arguments. But my responses: (1) One abortion is one abortion too many. (2) Is 45 million abortions not enough? (3) If not now, when?
When the pro-abortion lobby becomes unglued as seen by the actions done to the Unruhs instead of exhibiting peaceful demonstrations, something largely unknown to abortion supporters, we know we're doing the right thing. It's really no different than militant homosexual activists defacing billboards containing pictures of former homosexuals or sending boxes of condoms or phallic symbols to organizations backing state marriage amendments.
Lawmakers in other states should take note and follow South Dakota's example. Almost a dozen others have introduced legislation to do just that. The rest of America's states should as well, even if such may be near impossible to obtain. Each state needs to get at least one legislator in both their upper and lower chambers to introduce such legislation and fight for an up or down vote to pass it.
It's time to stick the fork in the abortion industry and not the knife in the women. If the fork won't do, the euthanizing needle will more than serve the purpose.
© Nedd Kareiva
Leslee Unruh is someone you should know. She has received harassing and threatening calls and e-mails at all times of the day and night. She has had clothes hangers placed in her mailbox with eggs splattered across her home. Her chiropractor husband has found dead animals deposited on his business property.
Joshua Heldreth is also someone you should know. He was arrested for simply bringing a cup of water to a facility he was not permitted to enter. This 10 year old was found guilty in court and ordered to perform 25 hours of community service and write an apology.
What do the above events have in common? Both individuals were in the spotlight in two historic cultural dramas over the last 12 months.
What do the above events have dissimilarly? The respondents reactions.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Joshua, here was a courageous child who chose to shine the spotlight on the starvation death of Terri Schiavo. He was heartbroken that a 41 year old woman, via a court order effective March 18th, 2005, had gone a full week sans food or water. A week later on Good Friday, Josh stepped on the property of the Pinellas County hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida to deliver a drink to Mrs. Schiavo. However, he was prevented by city police from doing so and subsequently arrested for trespassing.
13 days after the court order, Terri died from dehydration and starvation.
During this crisis which will go down as an indelible stain in U.S. history, conservatives, pro-lifers and Americans of all stripes and political parties descended on this Florida facility, praying, singing and holding signs. Citizens from all 50 states and people from around the world were frantically calling, writing, faxing and e-mailing state lawmakers, Congress, Gov. Bush, President Bush and our courts to save Terri's life. It went down as one of America's biggest landmark protests.
And Joshua's name made news in much of the media for doing what he did, shining the light of truth as to what really was happening to Terri.
However, in spite of one of the intensest, most passionate events in our history, Americans showed Herculean restraint from going ballistic on those who arguably contributed to Terri's death — Terri's husband Michael, attorney George Felos, hospice personnel, the courts, the police guarding the facility and the ACLU of Florida. Although violence is shunned by virtually all of the pro-life, pro-family community (and rightly so), it would have been understandable had someone actually entered the facility and specifically Terri's room and physically rescued her.
Of course, that should have been the job of Jeb Bush and his administration but we'll leave that go for now.
Fast forward almost a year later to when South Dakota's elected officials, in bipartisan fashion, passed a complete ban on abortion in the state, save for the life of the mother. Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota literally made the rounds and last week signed the first such state ban America.
And did I say that the sponsor of the ban in the Dakota Senate, Julie Bartling, is a Democrat?
Unlike the incredibly peaceful protests in Florida, however, the same could not be said of the pro-abortion souls who went ballistic on Mrs. Unruh, the director of a crisis pregnancy center in Sioux Falls. It didn't matter that she had no power to vote for the ban. Instead of picketing lawmakers who did so and because there is higher protection of public servants than private individuals, the likes of Planned Parenthood and NARAL chose an easy target in the Unruhs to do the damage they did, not only tangibly to the Unruh's properties but politically to the pro-abortion cause that is their sacred cow and symbolically to the political process they despise.
When push comes to shove, the evidence is clear who is peaceful when the political process (even rightly so) doesn't go their way and who is disrespectful and even violent.
Yes, there are a tiny handful of mavericks who take matters into their hands on occasion at abortion mills and those who work there. However, they greatly pale in comparison to the many intolerant individuals on the left who rip up and deface pro-life signs and posters and even instigate fisticuffs to get their points across. The posters with aborted children like Baby Malachi really stir up the emotions of the left.
Reminds me of the saying "no good deed ever goes unpunished."
Funny, I can't ever recall a time where pro-lifers snatched and tore up those carrying Planned Parenthood's "Keep Abortion Legal" and "Save Roe" signs, among others.
Time to pull the plug on Roe. Better yet, time to euthanize Roe. And do it now.
For those of you who think Roe is good, let me ask you about the signs containing the images of aborted children. Is this what you support? Would you support doing this to your pregnant dog or cat? What you do think what happen if Americans found out the local veterinarian was doing it? Would you protest? Or would you say that you support the right to do this to your dog or cat?
If you say yes to the last question, I guarantee that PETA will be knocking on your door, perhaps literally. And if the local vet is doing it, I assure you that PETA, if not the community he or she lives in, will run him or her out of town, that is if the state hasn't taken action to do so first.
And if the state catches up with that person, there is almost likely a jail cell waiting for him or her. And if there is a jail cell waiting for vets who would do such things, what excuses can you Roe supporters provide that like punishment shouldn't be provided for abortionists?
So why do you Roe backers support doing this to your fellow human beings? I don't buy your arguments like "can't afford a child now" or "have to finish school first" or that you're too young. What's that saying — "you make your own bed, you lie in it"? Grow up! Take responsibility for your actions! And yes, there are plenty of us willing to help such mothers in distress to either have the child or assist in giving him or her up for adoption.
Roe lovers, please don't give me your rape exceptions. While those are arguably traumatic, they don't erase the fact that a child is inside such women. Women who have experienced rape need a ton of love and support but they need not kill that child. The woman who goes thru with such a pregnancy and either keeps the child or surrenders him or her for adoption is much stronger mentally and likely has a higher degree of character than the one choosing to undergo a second trauma, that of having her body invaded a second time by a stranger.
Your incest exceptions don't fly either. While almost assuredly that children born out of incest should not be retained, it is neither permissible to kill that innocent being. There are plenty of Americans who would jump at the chance to adopt such children. And like the rape case, such pregnant women should get all the help and love they need. There is no need to kill, ever.
For those of you who think we're not ready to overturn Roe, I understand and respect your arguments. But my responses: (1) One abortion is one abortion too many. (2) Is 45 million abortions not enough? (3) If not now, when?
When the pro-abortion lobby becomes unglued as seen by the actions done to the Unruhs instead of exhibiting peaceful demonstrations, something largely unknown to abortion supporters, we know we're doing the right thing. It's really no different than militant homosexual activists defacing billboards containing pictures of former homosexuals or sending boxes of condoms or phallic symbols to organizations backing state marriage amendments.
Lawmakers in other states should take note and follow South Dakota's example. Almost a dozen others have introduced legislation to do just that. The rest of America's states should as well, even if such may be near impossible to obtain. Each state needs to get at least one legislator in both their upper and lower chambers to introduce such legislation and fight for an up or down vote to pass it.
It's time to stick the fork in the abortion industry and not the knife in the women. If the fork won't do, the euthanizing needle will more than serve the purpose.
© Nedd Kareiva
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
