Meanwhile, back in Indiana, a state representative has introduced a bill that “would put some of the tightest abortion restrictions in the nation into Indiana law” — making abortions illegal after twenty weeks, instead of twenty-four.
So another state representative proposes an amendment that would exempt “women who became pregnant due to rape or incest”, plus the other usual exceptions offered by civilized nations.
Of course, the first representative will have none of that:
I just want you to think about this, in my view, giant loophole that could be created where someone who could — now I want to be careful, I don’t want to disparage in any way someone who has gone through the experience of a rape or incest — but someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they’ve been raped or there’s incest.
Yes, “someone” could say that — although a man seeking an abortion because he was raped would be news for other reasons.
But to the point, someone did say that — the quote, not the claim. Can you guess the gender of the speaker?
Read more »