Nothing reveals people’s true selves like death.
Take the new law passed by the state legislature in Texas, for instance, regulating abortion of humans who have a detectable heartbeat.
It seems like a pretty reasonable place for a society to begin the discussion about that moment at which an unborn human baby assumes God-given — and constitutionally protected — rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Perhaps even that most precious Fourth Amendment right to “privacy.”
Oh, but this is not a reasonable discussion with honest, fair-minded people who care about rights, liberty, life, or even “privacy.” No, they are frothing zealots who peddle death with a rage hotter than the Taliban and bow to every abortion with blind, religious fervor.
A reasonable reporter seeking reasonable answers asked a reasonable question about President Biden last week. “Who does he believe then should look out for the unborn child?” the reporter asked.
White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki could not contain the rage that flickered behind her black eyes.
“He believes that it’s up to a woman to make those decisions,” she replied. “And up to a woman to make those decisions with her doctor.”
In other words: Heartbeat? What heartbeat? I don’t hear a heartbeat.
Perhaps realizing she had failed to answer the simple question, Ms. Psaki shifted from not answering the question to attacking the reporter for being born without reproductive organs.
“I know you’ve never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant,” the Merchant of Death spat with contempt. “But for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing. The president believes that right should be respected.”
What right? Who’s right? The right to life? The right to kill? Or the right to “privacy?” For the baby with a heartbeat?
End of discussion for the Merchant of Death.
A person named Richard Hanania picked up the discussion where Ms. Psaki left off.
“You can’t screen for Down syndrome before about 10 weeks, and something like 80% of Down syndrome fetuses are aborted,” Mr. Hanania wrote on the Twitter website, retreating to the well-worn euphemism “fetus” instead of “human” or “baby.”
“If red states ban abortion, we could see a world where they have five times as many children with Down syndrome, and similar numbers for other disabilities.”
Well, Mr. Hanania certainly makes a case for heartbeat abortions, but I don’t think it’s the one he intends to make. It’s more like that old question about whether if you had an opportunity to kill Hitler when he was a baby, would you?
To Mr. Hanania’s credit, at least he is more honest than Ms. Psaki and willing to engage her argument to its logical conclusion. He makes no pretenses that the abortion industry in America is about anything other than eugenics, which of course, was the whole basis for Planned Parenthood in the first place. And Hitler’s political party as well.
Another good question for Ms. Psaki and the Fourth Reich: Does the president support the right of a woman to abort a baby who has a heartbeat but not reproductive organs? Or, how about aborting a baby with a heartbeat because she does have reproductive organs? Or does that right only extend to babies with disabilities, such as Down syndrome?
How about the right to abort a baby with a heartbeat who is suspected might turn out gay? Or born with gender dysphoria? You know, as Mr. Hanania explained, those abnormalities can give a place a bad reputation.
• Charles Hurt is the opinion editor at the Washington Times.