The Iowa House passed a ban on telemed abortions this week, with the backing of the Iowa Board of Medicine, which voted 8-2 to ban webcam abortions. This is because webcam abortions are dangerous to women. However, Planned Parenthood, true to form, filed a lawsuit to overturn that decision, because abortion is more important to them than the safety of the women they pretend to care for.
While several Democrats voted in favor of the ban, most argued strongly against it. No argument was as outrageous, though, as that made by Democrat Beth Wessel-Kroeschell. According to her, there are a laundry list of reasons to have an abortion… like, say, colic.
I want to let you know that we as women know about babies. We love them. We adore them. But we also know that they have the challenges they bring. They have colic, the sleepless nights, the finances, the disciplinary challenges, the education challenges, the birth defects, the mental health issues, the learning disabled… the list goes on and on. And what women do know is that we know where our limits are. We absolutely know where our limits are — whether we’re ready, whether we’re physically ready, whether we’re emotionally ready, whether we’re finically ready to be parents — and we have the right to make those decisions.
It’s no wonder that Wessel-Kroeschell was called a champion for abortion by Planned Parenthood. This bill would not ban abortion. It would make it safer for women, and only the most pro-abortion extremists have a problem with that.
Wessel-Kroeschell is the perfect example of an extremist. The things she mentioned are the things that come with parenthood. No parent can know in advance if their child will be colicky, or if they will have problems with discipline or education. Often parents won’t be able to know if there are mental health or learning issues, either. Going by her logic, though, potential parents should have an abortion simply because these things might happen. We love babies, Wessel-Kroeschell says, but it’s better to have an abortion because a lot of stuff sure could go wrong!
By her logic, if we’re simply supposed to trust that women know their limits and what they can and can’t handle, then why draw the line at pregnancy? If colic is too much for a mother to handle, then why shouldn’t she be able to shoot the baby? It’s past the limit of what she can handle as a mother. Or what if the mother gets in a car accident and the baby ends up disabled? Maybe she can kill him then.
If that sounds despicable and horrifying — killing, say, a two-year-old because he has a disability — yet the exact same argument is an acceptable reason to have an abortion, then perhaps some serious soul-searching is in order.