PP: Husbands no part in abortion decision
The scandal-plagued Planned Parenthood announced its extremist pro-abortion stance last week by aggressively condemning a rule proposed by South Carolina’s health department that requires a husband to have a say in his wife’s decision to abort their preborn child.
Despite its early support for enforcing the proposed changes to the state’s abortion facility regulations that it submitted for review, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) later backtracked and reportedly removed the rule that would have given husbands the right to save their preborn children.
“But the agency said Wednesday it was a mistake to even suggest a married woman – if living with her husband – get his signed consent,” WBTW News reports. “State law requires a husband’s consent only in the third trimester, and such abortions can occur only in hospitals.”
But the fight is not over, as the DHEC is taking public comment on the issue via its website through Monday – before a public hearing on the matter is held in December – yet Planned Parenthood has been more than anxious to voice its vehement disapproval of giving husbands the right to save their own children’s lives.
Planned Parenthood against fathers
When officials at Planned Parenthood caught wind of the possibility of husbands stepping in to protect the lives of their preborn babies, the abortion giant quickly blasted the idea and moved to crush it as quickly as possible.
“Local Planned Parenthood leaders were incensed when they discovered the proposed rule changes,” Life News reports.
Those over the local abortion chain’s facilities argued that the proposed changes take away from so-called “women’s reproductive rights.”
“[The new rules are an attempt to] shame women and put barriers in their way of seeking constitutionally protected medical care,” Planned Parenthood stated. “Simply put, the regulations are based in politics – not medicine.”
Vicki Ringer, who is the South Carolina Director of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, appealed to ultra-feminists and pro-abortion extremists by insisting that the proposed rule would work to oppress women.
“We stand with South Carolina women and will fight these burdensome, unconstitutional and medically unnecessary regulations,” Ringer expressed in a statement.
Removing all barriers for abortions
Giving husbands a chance to save the lives of their preborn babies was not the only issue that Planned Parenthoods in the Palmetto State had a problem with.
“The abortion group has problems with a number of the new regulations – not just the now-nonexistent spousal notification requirement,” Life News’ Micaiah Bilger informed. “Ringer claimed the additional rules – that require abortion practitioners have admitting privileges at local hospitals, remove judicial bypass options for minors seeking abortions without a parent’s consent, and mandate surgical-facility requirements – are ‘blatantly unconstitutional.’”
It is reported that the world’s largest abortion provider looks to enforce a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to those desiring to put any limitations on its ability to facilitate the lethal practice.
“Planned Parenthood’s position on men and abortion is consistent: Men only should have a say in an abortion decision if they support it,” Bilger added.
Further demonstrating Planned Parenthood’s unwillingness to allow for any provisions that allow fathers to protect preborn children, pro-life blogger Sarah Terzo pointed to a quote by one of the abortion providers’ leaders on the matter.
“But it doesn’t matter how much men scream and holler that they are being left out [of the abortion decision],” Planned Parenthood Vice President of Medical Affairs Louise Taylor contended, according to Terzo. “There are some things that they are never going to be able to experience fully. I say, tough luck.”
Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood’s pocket
After further legal research, it was found that Planned Parenthood had already wrapped its fingers around the issue of fathers when it brought up its argument before America’s highest court (SCOTUS) more than two decades ago.
“Even if the state had kept the rule, it almost certainly would have been struck down by a court,” Bilger asserted. “In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring that a spouse be notified of an abortion in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.”
In a strike against the pro-life community, the Supreme Court Justices ruled that the measure was unconstitutional.
“A state may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children,” SCOTUS Justices argued in their reasoning.
The problematic ruling strips fathers of their parental rights and obligation to protect their children and defies reasoning.
“As a result, men do not have any rights to protect their unborn child from abortion under U.S. law – despite the fact that the child is biologically just as much theirs as the woman’s,” Bilger points out. “After their child’s birth, fathers are required to support and protect the child; but before birth, they do not have any legal power to protect the child’s life from abortion. Women are not even required to tell men that they aborted their unborn child.”
It is also argued that abortions do not just emotionally effect women, as an abortion can have a profound effect on the baby’s father, as well – a fact that goes unaddressed and is consistently ignored by today’s judicial system.
“There is substantial evidence that indicates post-abortive men suffer silently after abortion,” Bilger stressed. “Additionally, according to the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, men who are opposed to abortion but supported their partners’ decision may have an immediate reaction to the death of their child. They may feel sadness, grief, anger and a sense of not being able to protect their offspring.”
The psychological toll is even more severe for fathers who desire to save their children from being killed via an abortion that was only desired by his wife.
Copyright OneNewsNow.com. Reprinted with permission.