Abortion Not (Just) A Religious Issue – It’s Terry O’Neill Who Is “Poppycock”
Unborn Baby-killer supporter (is that too strong?) Terry O’Neill, President of NOW, like most pro-abortion supporters lives under the delusion that only religious people are, or would ever consider being, anti-abortion. While it is probably true that most non-religious people would support abortion just as most religious people would be opposed to it, religion in of itself is not necessarily the only, the over-all driving force, or most important factor, behind ones pro-life motives.
Liberal vs. conservative ideology. In other words, the vast majority of self avowed liberals, including those who describe themselves as “religious” are pro-abortion. Whereas, most self avowed conservatives, including those who describe themselves as “non-religious” are pro-life. Most non-religious people lean towards liberalism, as most religious people lean towards conservatism. However, most liberals leans toward being pro-abortion, just as most conservatives lean towards being pro-life. Religion, in this sense, is irrelevant.
Conservatives value human life, from the moment of conception, throughout one’s life unto death, and beyond, and are willing to make sacrifices in order to protect and preserve life which liberals are not willing to make. Sacrifices which include giving up, or postponing, one’s ambitions in order to care for a new child. Most often this burden falls on the woman who, if she is working, must give up that position.
Liberals, and especially liberal feminists like Terry O’Neill, despise and loathe the idea of women having to succumb to such an “ordeal”, to anything that would lessen their ranks and numbers in the workplace, that would revert them back to “homemaker” status. Feminists see this as “going backwards in time”. This is why they fight so fiercely for abortion, for the right of a woman to “choose”, for the right of a woman to end her pregnancy by terminating (killing) the unborn child within her that, if allowed to live, would hamper and strain the new mother to no end, stall or prevent “progress” and ‘equality” for women. It is so much easier to just kill the unborn child, from the liberal point of view. Even from the religious-liberal point of view. But not the conservative point of view. Or even the non-religious-conservative point of view.
That is why liberals neither put value on unborn life, nor consider, or would consider, an unborn child as a human life. If they ever did that, their entire pro-abortion, “right to privacy”, a “woman’s body” argument would be ripped to shreds.
And it is why O’Neill would have this to say about abortion, the Catholic Church and any federal regulation which would intrude on a woman’s right to “choose”:
“[F]or a bunch of men who, forgive me, don’t get pregnant and who refuse to allow women into their own ranks of leadership, to presume to say that they can make a thing that has a conscience that trumps the conscience of an individual woman is simply laughable, but in a sad way.”
So, O’Neill is revealing not only her anti-Catholic bigotry, but her overall condemnation of the “thing”, as she describes the living fetus. And she is using religion as the basis, the foundation, for her discontent and for the obstructionism which she contends is coming only from the point of view of “radical and “extremist” right-wing religious fervor, which feminists and liberals always do. But this is where she is wrong. It is not coming just from the religious aspect. Mostly, but not entirely. The pro-life sentiment comes entirely from the conservative aspect. For, it is conservatism which attests that the value of human life “trumps” an “individual woman’s” right to end that life.
O’Neill is saying here that it is “unconscionable” not allowing a woman to legally abort her unborn child because it could potentially represent regress to that “individual woman” and therefore, from O’Neill’s point of view, harm progress for all women and “women’s rights”? Didn’t Nancy Pelosi have that same problem, not too long ago, with the Catholic Church? And somehow we are to believe O’Neill, a liberal and a feminist, has more of a conscience than a pro-life conservative, religious or not.
O’Neill’s statement came in response to a reporter’s question about NOW’s support for a new federal regulation, issued under President Obama’s health care law, that will require all American Catholics as well as Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to buy health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.
O’Neill’s war with the Catholic Church and religion goes beyond its opposition to abortion, but is heavily centered around it. And using the First Amendment, freedom of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment she attacks Catholic Bishops who would fight to retain their own right not to be forced by law to dispense contraception or pregnancy ending pills to patients who might want them.
“In fact, any restriction on women’s access to birth control violates that individual woman’s right to the freedom of religion under the First Amendment; violates her right to the equal protections of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; violates her right to privacy under Griswold vs. Connecticut; violates her right not to be discriminated against in the workplace in violation of the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; and violates her rights under the Pregnancy Act”.
However, her contention that it is religion, and only those who hold religious values, which is in the way of the “progress” women have made is misguided. Devout, religious Catholics working in hospitals, of their own free will, have bound themselves to the concept that contraception equals the destruction of an embryo, which at that stage has conceived life. But there is a vast and fundamental difference between something taken which prevents a pregnancy from occurring, and something taken after the pregnancy has occurred, which ends, terminates (kills) the pregnancy already underway. This isn’t merely a religious concept but a scientific one as well. Science has shown conclusively that life begin at conception. Therefore, religion is out of play and conservatism, religious or not, and the value we ascribe to life, replaces it.
If her argument against Catholic based hospitals, publicly funded, was merely with a pill to block the pregnancy from occurring, O’Neill would have a point. The sperm itself is neither a life nor a human life, but merely the vessel in which is contained the information for building life. Likewise, the egg is neither life, nor human life, but merely where that life will be housed, built and ultimately created once the sperm (the vessel) reaches it.
Look at it this way – the average male produces hundreds of millions of sperm on an ongoing basis, and many times that throughout his life. If each individual sperm really was a life, and human life – and if God (or any Creator) actually does exist, and cares deeply about life, its sanctity and value, to the highest regard, why allow billions, hundreds of billions, of sperm to simply die in the process of finding their way to the egg during intercourse?
The same holds true for the egg. A woman, on average, ovulates every month. During ovulation a new egg is created. 12 eggs a year. If each individual egg was a life, and a human life, why would God allow for the destruction of eleven those eggs? All twelve in a given year if there is no intercourse. Consider the vast waste of sperm and eggs!
And while private Catholic, or any religious based, hospitals ought to have the right not to dispense medication counter to their beliefs, those which are public, and funded in part, or entirely through taxpayer dollars, have an obligation to the entire community. However, public or private, any hospital, religious or secular, with regards to its employees, needs to retain their rights where dispensing life ending medication (contraception) is concerned. In other words, any hospital, and any of its staff, need to retain their First Amendment rights to not provide to any woman any contraception, including condemns, which conflicts with their own personal religious values. If a woman goes to a public hospital for contraception she needs to find someone who is not bound by religious doctrine who can help her.
But O’Neill’s contention is that all hospitals, and all its staff, ought, and need, to check their religion and their religious values and convictions at the hospital’s main entrance door. This is more than wrongheaded – it is unconstitutional.
“In fact, the Obama administration has an obligation to allow every individual–individual faithful Catholic–to make her own mind up about whether she will use birth control and whether she will have an abortion. That’s the Obama administration’s obligation. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ claims that institutions can have consciences–that’s poppycock.”
What is “poppycock” is that statement and this one:
It [allowing hospitals a waiver from being legally compelled to provide contraception] violates the law, six ways from Sunday, to put any kind of restriction on it.”
What is “poppycock” is her long held war on religion, her ongoing war with Catholics, and Catholic Bishops in particular, and her ascertain that there is a fundamental constitutional right for any woman to have access to any form of contraception which is designed solely to end a pregnancy; and that hospital staff, religious or not, who are pro-life, by law, and under penalty of fine, firing, jail or anything else, must dispense it to women.
What is “poppycock” is the idea that religion is in the way of a woman’s “progress”. What is “poppycock” is the idea that abortion itself is “progress” for women. What is “poppycock” is the idea that liberalism, liberal feminists and all pro-abortion supporters “trump the conscience” of conservatism and conservative pro-life supports, religious or not.
That is “laughable”.