Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Spring 2022 PDF
    • Spring 2022 Articles
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • INSISTING ON LIFE
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
    • HLF In The News
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2021
    • Great Defender of Life 2021 Dinner Ticket
    • SPONSOR a TABLE at the Great Defender of Life 2021 Dinner
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2021
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2021
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Cart

Insisting on Life

3 Comments

Learning from AOC

02 Feb 2022
W. Ross Blackburn
abortion and rape, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC, Texas Heartbeat Act
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As a pro-lifer, I never suspected I would find myself agreeing with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a matter concerning abortion.  But despite being resolutely pro-abortion, her comments about the Texas Heartbeat Act, which prohibits abortion after six weeks, gave the pro-life movement something to think about.

During a September meeting of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform concerning the Texas law, Dr. Ingrid Skop, a Texas pro-life obstetrician, was asked if she agreed with the lack of an exception in the case of rape.  She responded that six weeks would be enough time for a woman who was raped to get an abortion. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez pounced:

Six weeks pregnant is two weeks late for one’s period. When you are raped, you don’t always know what happened to you. And I speak about this as a survivor…. You are in so much shock at what happened to you, sometimes it takes years to realize what actually went on. So this idea that victims know in the two weeks that they might be late for their period? I’m a buck 15. I’m 115 pounds. You look at me funny, I’m two weeks late for my period. And you’re supposed to expect me to know that I’m pregnant? Or the stress of a sexual assault—that makes you two weeks late for your period, whether you’re pregnant or not.

Ocasio-Cortez’ words seem right to me.  To say, in effect, “women have time to get it together in two weeks” sounds utterly void of understanding and compassion for women who have endured, or may endure, the degrading violation that rape is.  I am certain Dr. Skop didn’t mean it like that—she has given her career to serving women.  It appeared to me that she got cornered by the law itself.

While obviously not her intention, Ocasio-Cortez exposed the premise underneath the law, that killing children is an acceptable response to rape. Regardless of how conceived, the law suggests killing a six-week-old child is OK, but not a seven-week-old.  Which is precisely the reasoning at the foundation of Roe v Wade.  When Justice Henry Blackmun created the notions of viability and trimesters, he in effect declared age matters in determining whether a woman can have her child killed.

I understand the rationale behind the Texas law.  By restricting abortion as it does, it may save infant lives.  But it reinforces the logic of Roe, that some are worthy of protection, and others are not.  That being the case, perhaps lives won’t be saved after all.  Not only might such a law allow abortion to persist over the longer term, but once you open that door, it becomes very difficult to shut it.  In the words of George Orwell, the creed “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” leads in only one direction.  It is dark, it is deadly, and it is no respecter of persons—born or unborn.

Ocasio-Cortez put a finger on a fatal weakness in the law, and she was right to pounce on it.  Her response should give us pause.  When pro-lifers, even if unwittingly, affirm Roe’s premise, we encourage abortion culture.  Furthermore, we sabotage the effort to end abortion, for our arguments look foolish by not being straightforward.  The response “well, two weeks should be enough time for a woman to get an abortion” deserves the scorn it received.  Better is “we do not kill children in Texas.”

 

587 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
W. Ross Blackburn

Dr. Ross Blackburn has been ordained for 20 years and has served as Rector for Christ the King for the past 10. He earned a Master of Divinity at Trinity School for Ministry, and a PhD in biblical studies at the University of Saint Andrews, Scotland. He and his wife Lauren have been married for 23 years and have five children.
As a member of Anglicans for Life's Board of Directors, Dr. Blackburn is a regular contributor to AFL's Lectionary Life App series, and writes for the Human Life Review as well as  Christian Publications.

Social Share

  • google-share

3 Comments

  1. Mary McInerney February 10, 2022 at 5:53 pm Reply

    The law as written, effectively eliminates almost all abortions. Gut even if it effectively proscribed every abortion, we should. be honest and clear with our intention.“ . . . we do not kill children in Texas.” is perfect. It is the message that should be sent for our entire country!

  2. Peter Nyikos February 13, 2022 at 3:57 pm Reply

    I see things differently than Dr. Blackburn. While I agree with his moral evaluation of the abortion issue, I see that one must also use prudential judgment for framing effective pro-life laws. The Texas law has taken that principle into account, and has succeeded beyond my wildest dreams in reducing the number of abortions in that state.

    Attempts to have the law enjoined keep failing, partly because there has been insufficient standing to sue on the part of the plaintiffs thus far. [Biden’s attempt via the DOJ has failed most miserably on that score.] Abortionists are afraid to do the one thing necessary: disobey the law in a way that will get them sued, and thus give them the right to appeal the lawsuit.

    The pro-abortion movement has been gaming the judicial system for over four decades, and now the pro-life movement has outsmarted them on that score.

  3. Carmen February 13, 2022 at 5:31 pm Reply

    Wow Dr. Blackburn! Is abortion the only solution to a wanted or unwanted pregnancy? Should we consider a life of unborn child on the way? Should we consider other ways of helping a mother with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy? Dr. Blackburn, neither your argument nor AOC’s have convinced me that we should consider exemptions.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR

Recent Posts

ROE OVERTURNED

24 Jun 2022

Amid Possibility of ‘Roe’ Overturning, Pro-life Centers Face Threats and Attacks

15 Jun 2022

What New York’s “Limited Service Pregnancy Center” Bill Really Represents

14 Jun 2022

CURRENT ISSUE

Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott B G Carter Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kathryn Jean Lopez Kristan Hawkins Laura Echevarria Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Meaghan Bond Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Patrick J. Flood Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro W. Ross Blackburn Wesley J. Smith William Doino Jr. William Murchison

Pages

  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • TOPICS

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.