I got a message from a reader objecting to a reference to Pennsylvania as a pro-abortion state in the story about the Hollywood boycott threat over Georgia’s heartbeat abortion bill.  The story said “leaders of pro-abortion states,” but maybe it would be more accurately phrased, “pro-abortion state leaders.”  I’m sure there are many Pennsylvanians who are pro-life, but if you follow the link in the story I was writing about…

https://www.westernjournal.com/list-celebrities-threatening-boycott-heartbeat-abortion-bill-swells-100/

You will see that it quotes Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who in seeking to poach pro-abortion filmmakers away from Georgia made it clear in his own words that “Roe is the law — I protect it every day,” and he refers to the bill protecting babies in the womb with detectable heartbeats as something that “guts women’s rights.”  If you think that associating Pennsylvania with abortion is wrong and gives the state a bad name, he’s the guy to take it up with.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

Schiff lies again

Comments 1-1 of 1

  • Deborah Davis

    04/04/2019 07:31 PM

    Governor, when a woman has a choice of abstinence and another choice of birth control and acts to unite her body in what could result in her body no longer being singularly hers she assumes the risk of sharing her body. Having bypassed the choices of abstinence and birth control I dont think they can validly expect another choice to be given or accepted. Family planning requires PLANNING, not just waiting to see which way the wind blows. Assumes the risk is an actual legal term which can apply in many situations. One is not being denied choice when they have already blown through 2 choices like they were inconvenient stop signs. In Cruzan v. Missouri the parents of Nancy Cruzan who was in a vegetative state after an auto accident, very similar to the state of a baby, were not allowed to withdraw nourishment and let her die. One mother was not allowed to let their child die, but in Roe v.Wade another mother was. It is hard to fathom that both situations are correct. In Cruzan the Supreme Court ruled that the state had an interest in life. It would seem to me that if the state ever had an interest in life, the state would always have an interest in life thus trumping the right to privacy to get an abortion without government interference. An interest in life not extended to every person would viate the right to equal protection guaranteed in the Constitution. I have volunteered in a crisis pregnancy center and witnessed the devastating effects of abortion in the lives of women. I have great compassion for those who have had or are considering abortion. Lax attitudes toward women are the result of abortion. Women have been disregarded. We will never stop school and mass shootings until we as a nation value life and that permeates our society. There is no difference in the value of life in its mothers womb and the value of the life of a child in the classroom. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. My legal opinion in this matter is the result of personal study.)