The House Committee on Oversight and Reform conducted a hearing, “Examining State Efforts to Undermine Access to Reproductive Care.” The purpose was to discuss how state policies, such as the ones in Missouri, are acting as “systemic attacks” on reproductive healthcare. Blaze TV host, Allie Beth Stuckey, appeared as the lone pro-life witness. As a wife, mother, and conservative, Stuckey made a powerful case as to why unborn life deserves protection.
Focusing her testimony on unborn lives, Stuckey pointed out that medical advancements mean we can no longer plead ignorance when it comes to the humanity of those inside the womb. Premature infants have survived as early as 21 weeks after an early delivery, yet children can still be aborted even at this age in several states. This makes the United States one of seven countries, including China, whose radical abortion laws permit them beyond 20 weeks.
Speaking candidly, Stuckey reminded everyone that “there are two people” when we talk about abortion. Stuckey’s testimony provided valuable input into describing what these procedures entail, and how the abortion industry profits from turning a mother against her own offspring.
The abortion-choice advocates present tried to argue why Stuckey was not qualified to be pro-life instead of directly challenging her position. Often when pro-lifers express their views, detractors may attempt to escape a conversation about fetal personhood by drawing attention away from this issue. Throughout the hearing, pro-choice witnesses and Democrats, unintentionally or not, utilized common misdirection tactics to avoid directly answering Stuckey’s claims.
Pro-Life is Only an Opinion
Congressman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was quick to dismiss Stuckey’s testimony, drawing attention to Stuckey’s lack of a scientific or medical background. Wasserman’s declaration was an attempt to persuade those in attendance to not view Stuckey as a reliable source of information. As Stuckey pointed out, she was the only witness who was willing to describe what an abortion procedure entails, and how it involves ending the life of an unborn child.
A medical degree is not a requirement for deeming it morally unacceptable to kill innocent human beings.
Remember, as pro-lifers, we are not only defending our argument with science. While it confirms the unborn’s status as “distinct, living, and whole human beings,” science can only give us the necessary facts to draw moral conclusions. Expanding the scope of our argument to questions concerning human value, we can conclude there is no relevant difference between an embryo and an adult that justifies killing someone during an early stage of development.
Wasserman’s concern for Stuckey’s want of scientific credentials meant she unfortunately forgot to allow Stuckey the opportunity to properly defend herself. If she had, then perhaps Stuckey could have asked how Wasserman could claim to be expressing anything other than her own opinion. Science cannot explain why it’s unjustifiable to end an adult’s life based on their size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency. But for some reason, this standard is applicable during one’s most vulnerable stage of human development.
Pro-Lifers Must Assume Certain Policy Positions
While pro-lifers support women facing unexpected pregnancies, we’re often expected to champion very specific causes. There are many different positions one can hold while being against abortion, but the idea that one cannot be opposed to the taking of unborn life without having a strong stance on other issues is simply false.
Representative Robin Kelly accused Stuckey of not having compassion for people after they’re born. This is because she doesn’t agree with Kelly’s position on gun control and other legislative proposals. Kelly’s argument is that in order to qualify for being pro-life, one must consent to having certain political stances.
We do not have to earn the right to be pro-life by supporting the positions others have deemed to be compassionate. When abortion-choice advocates such as Kelly criticize pro-lifers for not shifting their cause’s resources towards fighting every injustice imaginable, they have not offered a refutation to the pro-life argument.
Abortion deliberately takes the life of an innocent child. The question of whether we’re in favor of specific policies has nothing to do with why we should allow the lives of defenseless humans to be forcibly taken.
Notably during Stuckey’s exchange with Kelly, the Democratic Congresswoman did not argue Stuckey’s position was wrong. She accused her of being inconsistent because they disagreed on policy, but the positions Stuckey holds are not incompatible with her stance that abortion unjustly deprives a child of their life.
The moral question surrounding the abortion debate is not one of privacy or bodily autonomy. It’s a question of by what standard do we measure the value of human life? The inconsistency claim does not disprove the pro-life position, as it offers no justification for failing to protect society’s most vulnerable persons.
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.