This commentary was excerpted from Opinionjournal.com’s Friday edition of, [url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004750]The Best of The Web Today[/url]:

By a vote of 254-163, the House yesterday approved the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, under which attacking a pregnant woman counts as two separate assaults, one on her and one on her unborn child. Opponents argue that this somehow undermines the right to abortion:

Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said it would be the first time in federal law that a fetus would be recognized as having the same rights as the born. The bill “is not about shielding pregnant women,” she said. “It is and has always been about undermining freedom of choice.”

The House, said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, was “taking advantage of tragedy to promote the far-right agenda of trying to rob women of their right to choose.”

Nita Lowey and Kate Michelman, standing tall for a murderer’s right to choose. And in truth, they are the ones undermining the intellectual case for abortion rights. The pro-life argument has always been that abortion is murder; Lowey and Michelman’s view is that murder is abortion.

I think another interesting point to note which is not spelled out quite as well as I would like in the article is that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act supports choice rather than limits it. How so? Because this act helps protect women who have chosent to have a child. The problem then, that pro-abortion groups must have with this bill is that it supports the opposite choice of what NARAL and other groups would like to see women make.

I guess, for them, choice is only okay if its a choice for abortion. No big surprise there.

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]