On Friday, hundreds of thousands of pro-life individuals gathered in Washington, DC, for the annual March for Life. The mainstream media once again ignored the nation's longest-running, largest protest. After all, it's not like it involved five people standing in front of Glenn Youngkin's bus or something. That level of newsworthiness doesn't come around very often.
But I digress. This year's march felt special because, for the first time since the federal codification of abortion, it could conceivably be the last one held before Roe v. Wade is overturned (either totally or in practice). As RedState has reported, Supreme Court oral arguments on the matter leaned heavily against the detestable precedent.
In the midst of all that, a man named Forrest Bennett stepped to the fore. Per his bio, he's the state representative for the 92nd district in Oklahoma, and he had an idea to try to own the pro-lifers. Per Bennett, he was going to prove their hypocrisy by introducing a bill to require fathers to support their children beginning at conception.
The problem? Basically, every pro-life individual would support such a measure. And it gets better, so stick with me.
Wait, you mean the same people who are against killing a child in the womb are also for a father being held financially responsible for helping conceive the child in question? Honestly, how thick of a bubble must one reside in to think that would be some kind of “gotcha” for the pro-life crowd? Apparently, Bennett spends most of his time on Slate, though, and didn't expect the level of support he got from his opposition.
Then something hilarious happened. When it became clear his attempt to own pro-lifers had good and thoroughly backfired…he decided he no longer wanted to support his own bill.
He found out pro-lifers liked the bill and had to do damage control pic.twitter.com/sOj6oZdpUc— Jordan Chamberlain (@jordylancaster) January 22, 2022
These pro-abortion hacks are the most transparent people in the world. How exactly does holding a father responsible for the conception of a child “hurt” the cause of being pro-abortion? If Bennett believed his bill made sense initially, what exactly changed except the “wrong” people supporting it? That's a rhetorical question at this point because that is, in fact, all that changed.
Bennett, and essentially all pro-abortion zealots, are not actually seeking to “protect” women as they claim. Rather, they exist to protect the institution of abortion itself. Even something as common sense as making a father pay for prenatal care isn't acceptable. Why? Because that might mean more men taking responsibility in preventing pregnancies that would otherwise be aborted.
You see, abortion itself is the sacrament. If the left loses that, they lose everything, and there is no level of irrationality they won't go to in order to guard it.