On December 1st I listened to the oral arguments in Dobbs, the Mississippi law before the Supreme Court. Among other things, Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States, argued vehemently against the overturn of Roe v Wade.
At one point she was asked by Justice Barrett about laws across the nation that promote the surrender of vulnerable newborns at fire stations. These are known as ‘safe-harbor’ laws. We have such a law here in California – as do most states.
These are good laws. They save lives. They bring the care of the community immediately to that young mother and to that child who would otherwise be thrown in the trash. I have many adopted friends, and they too love these safe harbor laws.
As the Solicitor General answered questions from Justice Barrett, the ‘General’ made it clear she does not like those laws. (You see, they give respect to the life of that child.) But Justice Barrett insisted that she clarify her point.
On behalf of the Biden Administration, the Solicitor General asserted that a woman’s right to kill her child is a vital right, but that surrendering her ‘right to be a parent’ is just as vital. We must not ask that of a mother, “surrendering parental rights is a monumental decision.”(This isn’t actually true. In California the mother has at least 2 weeks to reassert her mothering authority. ‘No shame/no blame/no names’. The child lives and the mother goes on in life, guilt free. Even open-adoption can be arranged. She can know the child for the rest of her life, if she wishes.)
Think about it: those ‘safe-haven’ laws are considered ‘evil’ because the woman is potentially, ‘giving up her right to be a parent.’ Really?
But somehow demanding the killing of your own child doesn’t give up your role and responsibility of being a parent? You don’t need to be a Solomon to recognize that there is something stunningly heartless in this admission of both responsibility for the child and the child’s clear need for protection, and the insistence that the child be killed.
It’s interesting. This time of year, the ASPCA strongly supports adoption of sad and vulnerable puppies. That’s a good thing. They would like you to care for, even ‘adopt’ those animals. The whole point of those moving ads on TV is that we need to respect the life of those puppies.
But wouldn’t it be nice if adoption were cheerfully extended to human ‘puppies’ as well? To our own vulnerable young? The Solicitor General of the United States adamantly prefers not. Adoption of human babies is for her and many in the abortion lobby, an offensive thought.
Apparently, the spirit of the season only extends so far.
LifeNews Not: Brian Johnston is the head of the California Pro-Life Council.
The post Abortion Activists and the Liberal Media Want People to Adopt Puppies, But Not Babies appeared first on LifeNews.com.