Skip to content

Feinstein tries to wriggle off the hook

You’d think that the pro-aborts in the Senate would have learned not to let Dianne Feinstein argue their case on the record … but you’d be wrong.
Here’s what she said on Thursday while arguing against The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Congressional record, pp. S3145-S3146). I can’t resist the opportunity to set the hook, reel in this poor idiotfish, and club her with a ClueBat™.

Mr. President, we do not address when life begins. I just read Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade. It is interesting, because he goes back to the Stoics, the Catholic Church, to the Middle Ages, and discusses the difference of opinion of when life begins, the difference of opinions in science. Then he reaches his conclusion that because these differences are so vast, the law generally does not directly enjoin that point of when life begins. [emphasis added]

The law certainly does say when life begins, Senator. It begins right after birth and not a moment before, according to the late Justice Blackmun and his black-robed intellectual heirs. An unborn child may be aborted at any point during pregnancy for any reason or no reason.
In Roe v. Wade, Blackmun refused to say “life begins in the womb”, so he effectively said “there’s nobody there … go ahead and kill that thing.”
In Doe v. Bolton, the infamous health exception means a pregnant woman need only claim that her “health” is in jeopardy (meaning anything from life-threatening consequences to unverifiable mental/familial/age-related stress), and voilá! Instant access to an abortion.
Stenberg v. Carhart says it’s quite alright to perform partial-birth abortions, in which the nice abortionist delivers all but the head of a full-term unborn child, stabs her in the head with scissors, sucks out her brain, then crushes her empty skull and delivers her now-dead body.
Sounds to me like the Supreme Court’s pretty sure that there’s nobody there to be protected … at least not until everything’s outside of mom’s body. So do everybody a favor and stop trotting out this “we do not address when life begins” nonsense like it’s an actual argument.

You have heard the most poignant, disturbing, heartrending stories on this floor. I respond to them like everybody else does. But I also know if you give a fertilized egg rights in the Federal law, it is going to have repercussions downline. If you declare in this bill you can prove a 1-day-old fertilized egg was a victim and therefore murdered, how do you turn around and say in another law you can proceed with embryonic stem cell research? You have the same 1-day-old fertilized egg. If it is murder here, is it not murder there? What are the repercussions of doing that? They are enormous. [emphasis added]

You’re exactly right, Senator. It’s pretty twisted logic to say that a man’s a murderer if he kicks his pregnant girlfriend and kills her baby, but he’s a noble provider of a critical service if he’s an obstetrician and sucks her unwanted baby into a sink when she asks him to.
I wonder which way the abortion debate would be resolved if we put illogical situations like these to a vote? More on that in a moment.

The other side doesn’t talk about this. They talk about women who are 7 or 8 or 9 months pregnant. They talk about the most heinous and brutal assaults. But the bill does much more. The bill says a 1-day-old fertilized egg is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Translation: It is a person. Translation: It is a human being. [emphasis added]

Um, Senator, what species is that fertilized egg a member of? How can a male Homo sapiens and a female Homo sapiens mate in such a way to produce offspring that are not members of the species Homo sapiens? If it’s not a human being, then what is that thing in there? A dog? A cat? A unicorn?

That is the problem, and this Senate, before it passes out this bill, should understand it and should understand there is an alternative, and the alternative aims to impose the same penalties, but doesn’t create that victim fertilized egg, 1 day old — by nobody’s stretch a human being — possible of becoming a human being, but not a human being. I have live cells, but they are not capable of producing life. [emphasis added]

Wait, let me make sure I’ve got this right. Nobody thinks a 1-day-old zygote of the species Homo sapiens is a human being? Funny, but I seem to recall certain Senators complaining about vast mobs of drooling right-wingers wanting to impose their views on everybody. Those folks don’t think that little thing in there is a human being?
The sperm was alive, and so was the unfertilized egg, and after they joined nothing died (I know, give the abortionists time and they’ll take care of that). If nothing died, then that little thing we’re talking about is a living entity, so it can be properly called a being. What kind of being is it? Well, a human sperm merged with a human egg, so the resulting being must be a … gosh, this is so hard, isn’t it Senator? Whatever might the answer be?
Nobody thinks it’s a human being, you say? Right. Got it. Thanks.

But once the child, the fetus in the womb, is capable of living, that is a different story. I am the first one to admit that is a different story. But everything in this bill, the underlying bill, goes back to the basic definition of what is being done here, and that is that personhood, life, is being given to a 1-day-old fertilized egg. [emphasis added]

It’s a different story? You support a viable fetus’ right to life? This is news, considering your record of supporting partial-birth abortion in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2003. I look forward to hearing how “different” your position is when we’re not talking about 1-day-old zygotes.

I saw the terrible morbidity and the terrible things they did illegally in back-alley abortions. At that point, I said this is so terrible. Then Roe v. Wade passed in 1973, and a woman could control her own reproductive system, particularly in that first trimester. [emphasis added]

I wondered earlier about this whole abortion rights mess coming to a vote.
So Roe v. Wade “passed”? Passed what, Senator? It didn’t pass through any legislative body I’ve ever heard of. It wasn’t a bill, because it wouldn’t have stood a snowball’s chance in hell of getting through Congress. It was a lawsuit that made it past 7 unelected old men in black robes, which is still your only hope for keeping abortion on demand legal. Was that what you meant?

I tried to perfect the bill. … I have made it crystal clear in my remarks. We will have the same penalties [in the amendment] for the same crimes as the underlying bill. We will avoid one thing, and that is determining when life, for the purpose of law, actually begins. [emphasis added]

What you’re trying to avoid is the truth, Senator. You don’t like having to defend the killing of children, so you throw up a smokescreen of almost-arguments and catchphrases, hoping against hope that we rubes out here in flyover country won’t catch on. I’m not betting much on your side’s chances, now that your stranglehold on the media is broken and your grip on the education system is loosening.
ClueBat™ application complete.