The pro-abortion blogosphere is on fire with outrage over the Susan B. Anthony & Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, or PreNDA. The purpose of the bill is to keep women from being coerced into aborting their child based on its gender or race.

There’s a simple way around this, of course, in that the woman can lie about her reason for aborting. But even this easily slipped knot is too restrictive for abortion advocates.

Part of what’s angering pro-aborts — besides the idea of applying any restrictions whatsoever to abortion — is that the abortion provider could be punished if he knowingly aborts a baby based on its gender or race.

 

Also, Ms. Magazine, and maybe some other publications people actually read, grumbles that this bill is aimed to single out women of color.

Lastly, the name of the bill is apparently offensive to the pro-aborts, who are fond of co-opting women and black people for their own cause and don’t want to share. They say that “scholars agree” Susan B. Anthony’s views on abortion were not as clear-cut as so-called pro-life feminists would have us believe.

Let’s take this one hypocrisy, irony, and lie at a time, shall we?

First: if it were the woman who was punished for aborting a child, I promise the pro-aborts would be screaming their heads off. It doesn’t matter to them who is punished for an abortion. It’s the idea that anyone — besides the baby, of course — could face legal action over an abortion that drives them crazy. If the bill stated that a woman seeking a sex or race-based abortion could be prosecuted, I guarantee you this same blogger would be just incensed as she is now over the provider being punished.

Second: how ironic is it that Ms. Magazine, et. al., are playing the race card over a bill that will keep babies from being killed based on their race?

Third: Let’s leave the scholars out of this and let Susan B. Anthony tell you what she thinks about abortion in her own words:

“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.”

Not a lot of room for interpretation there.

According to The New Statesman, Congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) crafted the bill so that not only the abortion provider but anyone seeking to coerce a woman into aborting based on sex and race could spend up to five years behind bars. “The result of abortion on demand in America today is that between 40 and 50 percent of all African-American babies — virtually one in two — are killed before they’re born,” said Franks.

The article goes on to say that in a Congressional hearing about PreNDA, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) cited a University of Southern California study of Indian-American women who faced abuse at the hands of their husbands when they revealed they were carrying female babies. “Some husbands have even reportedly withheld food and water from their wives,” Chabot testified. “Some hit, punched, choked, and kicked the women in the abdomen, attempting to forcibly terminate the pregnancy.”

PreNDA would see to it these men received more than a domestic abuse charge.

All abortions are wrong, and it can be argued that killing a baby because it is a certain gender or race is no worse than killing one for any reason. But this bill could save lives, and it could draw attention to the tragically high abortion rate among black women and the 100 million plus baby girls worldwide who have died because they were female.