On Friday, thousands of life-supporting individuals came together in Washington, DC for the annual March for Life. The mainstream media once again ignored the nation’s longest-running, largest protest. After all, it’s not like it involved five people standing in front of Glenn Youngkin’s bus or something. That level of newsworthiness doesn’t come around very often.
But I digress. This year’s march felt special because, for the first time since the federal codification of abortion, it could conceivably be the last one held before Roe v. Wade is overturned (either totally or in practice). RedState reports that Supreme Court oral arguments on this matter were strongly opposed to the detestable precedent.
Forrest Bennett was the man who emerged in the middle of it all. Per his bio, he’s the state representative for the 92nd district in Oklahoma, and he had an idea to try to own the pro-lifers. Bennett said that he would introduce a bill that required fathers to provide support for their children from conception.
Problem? The problem is that virtually every pro-life person would be willing to support this measure. It gets even better. So, stay with me.
https://t.co/dxOfcB3Gmr pic.twitter.com/IAjiCMamwO
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) January 22, 2022
Are you referring to the idea that fathers should be held financially responsible for helping the mother conceive their child? Honestly, how thick of a bubble must one reside in to think that would be some kind of “gotcha” for the pro-life crowd? Apparently, Bennett spends most of his time on Slate, though, and didn’t expect the level of support he got from his opposition.
And then, something funny happened. When it became clear his attempt to own pro-lifers had good and thoroughly backfired…he decided he no longer wanted to support his own bill.
He discovered that the bill was popular with pro-lifers and needed to mitigate their impact. pic.twitter.com/sOj6oZdpUc
— Jordan Chamberlain (@jordylancaster) January 22, 2022
The most open and transparent pro-abortion hackers are in this world. How exactly does holding a father responsible for the conception of a child “hurt” the cause of being pro-abortion? If Bennett believed his bill made sense initially, what exactly changed except the “wrong” people supporting it? That’s a rhetorical question at this point because that is, in fact, all that changed.
Bennett, and essentially all pro-abortion zealots, are not actually seeking to “protect” women as they claim. Instead, they are there to preserve the institution and practice of abortion. Even something as common sense as making a father pay for prenatal care isn’t acceptable. Why? It might be that more men will take the responsibility of preventing unplanned pregnancies.
Abortion is itself the sacrament. If the left loses that, they lose everything, and there is no level of irrationality they won’t go to in order to guard it.
About Post Author
