It was a beautiful Tuesday in Juneau, with five cruise ships in town, and the locals gathering at the Capitol to protest, as they do so often.
But this time they were in shorts, t-shirts, and wearing sun protection. There were no puffy jackets or rain gear. You could count the children present on one hand.
This time, they were not protesting for education funding, but protesting a bill that is likely already stillborn — Rep. David Eastman’s “Life Begins at Conception” bill, HB 178, which is the kind of bill that is introduced every year without much debate, since these bills rarely get heard.
Also known as the Abolition of Abortion Act of 2019, HB 178 would define a child as a person from conception until age 18. Killing such a child would be considered murder. Murder is a felony, even under SB 91.
But although the bill, filed during the last hours of the regular session, isn’t going anywhere, some 300 people held signs — many of them provided by Planned Parenthood — and chanted at what is these days nearly an empty Capitol building, since lawmakers are without most of their staff during this Special Session.
At the Legislative Information Office in Wasilla, a few protesters gathered for a rally as well, with the same message and on the same topic of “my body my choice,” Protests against HB 178 also took place in Anchorage and Fairbanks over the weekend.
Rep. Ivy Spohnholz of Anchorage, a staunch pro-abortion Democrat, has sworn the bill will never get a hearing in its first committee of referral, Health and Social Services, which she chairs. Rep. Bart LeBon of Fairbanks said he doesn’t support the bill; he is a Republican member of the Democrat-led caucus.
A small group of abortion protesters were also out today in Juneau, but were in the role of quiet observers.
On Monday, Eastman posted on Facebook, “‘I’m so glad I was aborted’…said no one, ever.”
Your word choice in this article is inconsiderate, callous, off-putting and distasteful. Not to mention disrespectful to all the families that have experienced infant loss, an impossibly painful experience to live through. I have lost respect for you as a news source choosing to use the term stillborn in this article. It is malicious and uncalled for.
So it’s the word choice of “stillborn” that is offensive, when these demonstrators favor abortion up until the time of birth. Maybe the writer should have said the bill is dead on arrival. Or HB 178 will have its spine snipped in two, or will be pulled limb from limb. Of all the things to get upset about…geesh.
There was no indication of what side this person was on, since they made a comment about stillbirth you can likely draw the conclusion that they value life. The word choice was poor. It seems clear you’ve never experience this kind of loss, and I am grateful that you haven’t. But minimizing and using a word so callously is extremely painful and harmful to the families that have. You saying that someone who wants to protect the dignity of a life that was so desired and is actively mourned Is not something worth getting worked up about yet think that abortion is wrong is the epitome of the brokenness of the country on this issue. What makes a life that was desired less important than a life that isn’t? You’re fighting this bill to protect life if I understand correctly so why won’t you give respect and honor to the lives that were desired and lost too early?
The article also used the word murder. Do you think it was inconsiderate to families of murder victims? There were a lot of words used in the article and I am sure you could find fault with all of them in some context or other.
You’re correct there are a lot of words that can hurt people in this article as with every article. Seems that our parents were correct to teach is that words are powerful. To choose to use the word stillborn in an article about a political topic that is likely already painful for women and families that have experience any type of loss in regards to pregnancy, abortion included is insensitive. Clearly you have no experience with this type of loss or you might be able to see how painful that word choice is. I in no way mean to minimize any life that is lost by focusing on the word stillborn over say murder as you suggested, quite the opposite in fact in trying to provide insight into how painful and already shoved into the shadows infant loss is.
Get over it.
.
The Party of Hillary Clinton demand their right to continue butchering babies at taxpayers’ expense.
.
It’s about time somebody called them out for what they are.
Petty
The bill.is accurate. Childhood does begin at conception. Scientific fact.
I am not looking to be offended, and I wasn’t. You’re words professionally tell a news story. Keep up the great work.
Dear Anonymous: each and every time a person uses words, any words, risks making people uncomfortable. The word ABORTION makes me uncomfortable every time I hear it and read it. It is murdering babies! I myself have lost a child, not by abortion, but by miscarriage. Can Suzanne not say this is a “miscarriage of justice” in any of her writings without risk of making someone uncomfy? I have had so much loss in my life…murdered family member; drownings; suicide; missing forever; hunting accidents; fishing accidents… But, I have had so much joy in my life too! I try to focus on that joy and move forward. Let the authors words be hers to tell the story and not drag you down.
Some people are constantly looking to be “offended”, maybe “Anonymous” is in this group. Actually, I think the word “stillborn” is very descriptive in this instance because a stillborn baby is a wanted baby as compared to an unwanted baby that is aborted. This bill introduced by its author, Representative Eastman, is wanted, but due to actions not of his own the law will die without a hearing. Sad!
It’s time to stop calling it the pc name given it by the left; and time to call it what it is……………MURDER! The baby Murder must stop!
Believing big people can attain worthwhile benefits by spilling the blood of unwanted children is a demonic child sacrifice religion. Child sacrifice religions should not be constitutionally protected.
Comments are closed.