When Bill O'Reilly introduced a recent "Kelly File" segment as being about "protecting the kids," I assumed that this was going to be about "Megan's Law" or something really radical - like discussing how 21% of kids live in poverty or those states (red) with the highest percentage of uninsured kids. But that wasn't the case. The "kids" referenced by O'Reilly are fetuses which, according to Bill's stats from the radical anti-choice "Americans for Life," are at risk in states with liberal abortion laws. Not surprisingly, Bill used his premise to, again, attack NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo for his proposed abortion bill. But rather describing Cuomo as a "barbarian," Bill's approach was more focused on the "kids" who are being abused by those silly, stupid sluts who will invariably take advantage of the bill's health exception to get an abortion that they shouldn't have - mantra that Bill articulated during his jihad against Dr. Tiller. Bottom line: Ladies, if you have a pregnancy that isn't immediately life threatening, you should suck it up until, like Savita, you die! But aging, Catholic, uterus-free Bill is looking out for you, so it's all good.
As NY is one of these states, Bill wasted no time, on June 6th, in launching into what has become a standard whine about how NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's attempt to make abortion laws "OMG" even more liberal. Not surprisingly, this law is being vigorously opposed by Fox fave, Cardinal Timothy Dolan who ordered all his diocesan priests to tell their congregation to contact their legislators to voice their opposition. To a backdrop of "protecting the kids" O'Reilly referenced 41 states that have laws governing late term abortions of which NY is one. He reported that Cuomo wants to extend the criteria for late abortions from just a threat to a woman's life to women's health which "could mean anything as we saw in Philadelphia with the monstrous Dr. Gosnell."
Megyn Kelly said that Cuomo is doing this to reach out to women. She reminded O'Reilly that Gosnell was performing illegal third term abortions and not trying to get around the law. Not wanting to be corrected, Bill claimed that according to Gosnell's lawyer, women with just anxiety were able to get abortions. He added "a health exception can mean anything." Kelly explained the federal law surrounding health exceptions which cued O'Reilly's trademark hatred and distrust of women: "If you have a sprained thumb and you want to abort that baby two days before it's born in NY, if this horrible bill passes." (And it's Bill's business, how?) He made the pointless comment that one of his god-children who was born at 26 weeks and "he is now a brilliant kid and a championship tennis player, just so everybody knows what we're talking about here." Bill didn't mention if this child was just born prematurely or had additional medical problems.
Kelly spoke to how those states with health exceptions have standards built in and "that was what was happening with Tiller." Bill asked her, loudly, what standards are in the NY law. When she said she couldn't, he pontificated "there aren't any." Kelly cited the federal ban on so called "partial birth abortion" which is a "horrific procedure" and how the Supreme Court upheld the lack of a health exception. She added that different late term procedures aren't governed by this. Pope Bill preached: "If this law in NY passes it would be a horrific, brutal law." (As opposed to, say, allowing women, like Savita, to die?) When Kelly said that it puts responsibility in the hands of abortion doctors, O'Reilly interjected "some of whom will do anything as we've seen." Kelly added "as we saw in Pennsylvania."
Cuomo's law does meet the standards of Roe and, according to the Cuomo administration, is necessary in the event that Roe is overturned - O'Reilly best wet dream. The law is supported by medical professionals who cite the instance of a woman whose health problems increased as the pregnancy continued, although not to the point of being life threatening. An abortion was done before that point was reached because had she waited, until her life was threatened, she would have died.
Why does Bill O'Reilly hate women?
Tell ya what Billy. When YOU get a uterus, we’ll allow you to have a valid opinion on abortion. Or when YOU (and the rest of the anti-choice zealots) offer to pay EVERY woman considering abortion a nice little sum to carry the fetus to term, then we’ll talk further. By the way, that “nice little sum” means an amount of money that (1) allows the woman to eat NUTRITIOUS food during her pregnancy, (2) allows the woman to see an OB/GYN on a regular basis throughout the course of the pregnancy, (3) allows the woman to take time off from her job for these OB/GYN visits and any other medically-related (including delivery AND recovery) time off without her fearing that she’ll lose the job, (4) allows the woman to buy clothing to accomodate her ever-increasing size (and the clothing must be what the WOMAN wants to wear—no skimping on this by deciding she has to wear “hand-me-downs” or thrift shop maternity clothes), and (5) allows the woman to have any necessary counseling from a professional counselor (of HER choice—not yours—and the cost must included anyone else she wishes involved with the pregnancy, whether the “sperm donor” or a member of her own family) to determine whether it’s in her best interests—and by extension, the future baby’s—to keep the child or give it up for adoption. (These points, by the way, are just the MINIMUM requirements for that sum to cover.)
Now, should she decide (after the counseling) to keep the baby, YOU (and the other anti-choice zealots) must ensure that she has enough money to keep her and her new baby off the poverty rolls. This includes paying for the child’s future schooling (up till he or she is at least 18; it’s only fair—you want to play “daddy,” you should be responsible enough to see that the child is cared for via child support) and the child’s pediatrician visits and all those other “incidentals” involved in raising a child.
If she decides to give up the child for adoption, then YOU (and the other anti-choice zealots) must pay for that child for as long as he or she remains in “the system.” After all, adoption agencies don’t usually care for their charges out of the goodness of their hearts—they need funding. And if the kid stays in the system till he or she is 18, well, so be it.
Now, this probably wouldn’t cause YOU (or the other anti-choice zealots) too much financial hardship—IF it were just one or two cases. But you’re looking at (by the anti-choicers’ own estimates) MILLIONS of cases EACH AND EVERY YEAR. Even figuring a minimum of paying $10000 a year per non-aborted child, you’re looking at ten BILLION dollars a year for just a million non-aborted kids. Do YOU (and the rest of the anti-choice zealots) have ten BILLION dollars just lying around? And remember, that’s the cost for ONE year. Each year, you’d still be responsible for the cost of the previous years’ non-aborted children in addition to all the kids not being aborted this year.
Put your money where your (big) mouth is, Billy. Or is it easier to pontificate against choice as long as it’s not costing you anything and the body dealing with the pregnancy isn’t your own?