Louise Slaughters Bill for Slaughter

Author: Sarah Riordan

 To quote the oh so diplomatic Judge Judy…don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

 The above quote pretty much sums up Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s new bill, H.R. 463.  In fact, the first paragraph is where the deceit begins. Here Slaughter states that the bill wants to provide contraceptives to girls with the intention of reducing the number of abortions. 

Okay, first things first, when reviewing the long list of Congressmen and woman who signed their names supporting the bill, something seemed odd.  The typical pro-life advocates were absent from the list.  For example, Fortenberry, Akin, and Lipinski were neither listed as sponsors or cosponsors.  So naturally, something about this bill just felt off.

When reading through the first pages of the bill, nothing obvious stands out.  It follows the format of a typical bill beginning by citing research about unplanned pregnancies, and the number of women in lower socio-economic circumstances that don’t have access to birth control.  Wait a minute…that does spark a thought, who was the famous woman that longed to provide minorities and poorer woman with birth control? Oh wait, that’s right, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, which is also the largest abortion provider in America.

Sanger’s goal was to eliminate people she saw as inferior through birth control.  Now for those of you, who view Sanger as a saint; let’s review some of her most infamous writings.

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race 

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America.

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Whenever a bill aims to provide birth control, it nearly always focuses on minorities within the US.  That is exactly what Sanger’s goal was.  Apparently Sanger and Slaughter both think they know what sort of women should be discouraged from having children.  According to Sanger, it’s not about providing a service to women, but about eliminating the poor and minority groups.

Now at about page four, the bill becomes incredibly transparent.  Suddenly, the bill goes from speaking about birth control, to speaking about emergency contraception. (The morning after pill.)  Even the most ignorant of college students can tell you that the morning after pill is used in case conception has occurred.  A true pro lifer would be against the use of this emergency contraceptive because its goal is to cause a very early abortion.   If the public does not view the morning after pill as an abortifacient, it should.  So either Slaughter is ignorant, or she thinks the public is stupid enough to be convinced that this pro-choice bill has a prolife message.  Come on Slaughter, stop being an elitist and give the public a little more credit.

Honestly, the problems mentioned above don’t even touch the surface of all the wrong stated in H.R.463.  The bill also mentions birth control providers helping with the elimination of STD’s.  Are they planning to do this by providing birth control?  If anything, providing girls with the pill is going to give them license to be more sexually active.  The pill does not protect against STD’s.  Neither does the morning after pill.  No birth control (other than abstinence) can truly keep a person safe from disease.

This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  It’s trying to seem prolife friendly while forcing taxpayers to go against their convictions by providing emergency contraception funding for girls.  If Slaughter’s bill is passed that‘s what will happen.

Slaughter, who do you think you’re kidding? 

Oh, and does anyone else find it ironic that her last name is Slaughter? Anyone…anyone?