There Are No Exceptions When It Comes to Being Pro-Life
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
<span>Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., seen in shadow, as he speaks during the Road to Majority 2015 convention in Washington, Thursday, June 18, 2015.</span>
Anita Crane - published on 08/18/15 - updated on 02/02/18
Why opposing abortion should mean opposing all abortion
Since 1973, some 59 million baby Americans have been slaughtered by abortionists and this is an enormous holocaust. Finally, in 2015, thanks to video exposés by the Center for Medical Progress, the abortion chain Planned Parenthood and abortion per se are major issues in the presidential campaign. More surprisingly, a Fox News moderator challenged Republican candidates on the issue of legal exceptions to pro-life laws.
If you don’t know the perils of legal exceptions, consider Brazil. This year, a delegation of Brazilians came to Washington, D.C. for the March for Life. They were led by Senator Magno Malta, his wife, then-Congresswoman Lauriete Malta, and former Congressman Luiz Bassuma.
Senator Malta explained: “In Brazil, abortion is legal if pregnancy risks the life of a mother; if the baby was conceived during rape; and for babies diagnosed with the ‘fetal deformity’ of anencephaly.”
With these few legal exceptions, approximately one million baby Brazilians are aborted every year. Members of the delegation told me the typical scenario: Many pregnant women claim they went to a party, got drunk, passed out and then they were raped.
Putting Pro-Life Republicans on the Record
At the Fox primetime debate, moderator Megyn Kelly asked: “Senator Rubio, you favor a rape and incest exception to abortion bans. Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York just said yesterday those exceptions are ‘preposterous.’ He said they discriminate against an entire class of human beings. If you believe that life begins at conception—as you say you do—how do you justify ending a life just because it begins violently through no fault of the baby?”
Rubio answered: “Well Megyn, first of all, I’m not sure that’s a correct assessment of my record. I would go on to add that I don’t favor a…”
Kelly interrupted: “You don’t favor a rape and an incest exception?”
Rubio: “I have never said that and I have never advocated that. What I have advocated is that we pass a law in this country that says all human life, at every stage of its development, is worthy of protection. In fact, I think that law already exists. It’s called the Constitution of the United States. And let me go further. I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws, whether they can vote or not; whether they can speak or not; whether they can hire a lawyer or not; whether they have a birth certificate or not. And I think future generations will look back at this history of our country and call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies—we never gave them a chance to live.”
Kelly confronted Rubio because he co-sponsored the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in 2013 and 2015. The non-verbatim premise of the bill is that unborn persons can feel pain starting at the age of 20 weeks; that the deadly acts of abortion are violent and painful; and thus abortion should be banned nationwide for unborn babies aged 20 weeks and older.
However, the bill contains exceptions to abort babies conceived during rape and incest. It also permits abortion if a pregnant mother’s life is endangered by “a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but not including psychological or emotional conditions.”
After the Fox showdown, Rubio was interviewed by Chris Cuomo on CNN, who also saw the contradiction. Cuomo said it seems Rubio got his own record wrong.
And what did Rubio say? “No. That’s not true. Everybody supported that bill; every single pro-life senator; every single pro-life group, including the Catholic groups, supported the bill you’re talking about…”
Cuomo interrupted: “But it included the exceptions.”
Rubio continued: “Because it prevents abortions…”
Incidentally, other Republican senators running for president co-sponsored the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act: Ted Cruz (Texas), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Rand Paul (Ky.). There it is. Rubio, his Senate colleagues and a vast number of pro-lifers are confused because prominent pro-life organizations endorsed these bills with exceptions.
I contacted Rubio’s campaign office requesting an interview, but no one replied. In 2013, two pro-life Congressmen voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on account of exceptions and Governor Walker protests exceptions in his state.
Megyn Kelly asked Walker about this: “Governor Walker, you’ve consistently said that you want to make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. You recently signed an abortion law in Wisconsin that does have an exception for the mother’s life, but you are on-record as having objected to it. Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion? And with 83 percent of the American public in favor of a life exception, are you too out-of-the-mainstream to win the general election?”
He answered: “Well, I’m pro-life. I’ve always been pro-life and I’ve got a position that I think is good system with many Americans out there in that, in that, I believe that is an unborn child that’s in need of protection out there. And I’ve said many a time that that unborn child can be protected and there are many alternatives that will also protect the life of that mother. That’s been consistently proven. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has a radical position in terms of support for Planned Parenthood, I defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out. I’ve got a position that’s in line with everyday America.”
The Medical Case Against the Life of the Mother Exception
Do any medical conditions require abortion to save the mother? In 2013, former abortionist and longtime obstetrician Dr. Anthony Levatino of New Mexico before Congress. The pro-life convert described abortions as “brutal” and said he remembers his victims.
He testified: “I often hear the argument that we must keep abortion legal in order to save women’s lives in cases of life-threatening conditions that can and do arise in pregnancy. … During my time at Albany Medical Center, I managed hundreds of such cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.”
Caesarian section is one “pregnancy termination” method he uses to save both mother and child. Dr. John Bruchalski of Tepeyac Family Center in Virginia stressed to Aleteia: “As a doctor, as an OB-GYN, I always take care of two patients: the mom and the child.” Bruchalski previously told Aleteia that he performed abortions during his residency and why he stopped. He said unborn babies aged 22-23 weeks can survive outside their mothers’ wombs with care from major medical centers.
“We have incredible medical technology today with excellent medicine, excellent monitoring, excellent technology where we can oftentimes stabilize life for the mom until the baby is viable outside the womb. So, many conditions in medicine don’t necessitate an immediate termination. In fact, when babies get to be a certain size and you abort them, there are so many fluid shifts within the mother’s body that it becomes dangerous in and of itself.
“Let’s say the uterus is incredibly cancerous and the baby is inside the uterus, but in order to save the life of the mother you have to take out the uterus—do a hysterectomy—while the baby’s inside the uterus, and that’s the principle of double effect,” said Bruchalski.