Monday, May 1, 2023


By Tim Rohr

We are constantly lectured by the pro-aborts that what a woman does with her body is "none of your business." 

Okay, fair enough. Never mind the scientific fact that there is another body in the woman's body, let's grant the pro-aborts their argument for now. 

The question then becomes: "Okay, at what point is that "other thing in your body" not your body?

According to our now-governor, even after that "other thing in your body" is no longer in your body but laying on a delivery table or in a waste bucket still alive and gasping for life, that "other thing that WAS in your body" is still "your body" and you have the right to kill "the thing," even if the thing is no longer in your body - and that's because you wanted the thing dead in the first place.  

(Listen to Tall Tales every Friday after the "half-time" show to hear or watch a recording of the now-governor arguing for the death of the living "thing" at a legislative public hearing.)

Okay, that's a bit extreme, so let's back up a bit. 

Let's say the thing is already mostly delivered except for the thing's head which is still inside your body. Is it still your body? If so, then is it okay with you to stick a knife into the back of the thing's head and scramble its brains before delivering the rest of the now-dead thing? 

Note: In case you don't know this is called partial-birth abortion, and Sens. Fisher and Barnes' new bill will remove the ban on this particular way of killing the thing.

Okay, that's still a bit extreme, I mean the thing's arms and legs flailing about at the moment the knife stabs into its brains (as described by nurse witnesses). So let's back up a little more. Let's back up to Roe, the pro-abort's monument upon which the "none of your business" mantra is built.

Pro-aborts will probably be surprised to learn that Roe never said "it's none of your business." In fact, it pretty much said it's none of the woman's business.  

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) at XI, the Court wrote:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Note that in (a) the decision is not the woman's but "the woman's attending physician." And note that in (b) and (c), the Court clearly makes a case for "it's the state's business." In fact, it could be said that the recent decision in Dobbs, giving the regulation of abortion back to the states, was just doing what Roe itself had already called for 50 years earlier, at least for the second and third trimesters. 

So, at least according to Roe re abortion in the second and third trimesters, a decision to "kill the thing" in your body IS "our business," because "who is the state" other than we, the people, who reside and vote there?

But back to where we started for a minute. Is it your business to care about a child who is demonstrably abused, neglected or abandoned? If so, at what point is that child "your business?" Still in the womb, partially delivered out of the womb, out of the womb altogether, 3 minutes old, 3 years old? Where's the line? 

At least Roe drew a line, even with conditions, at about 12 weeks gestation, or the end of the first trimester. And given that even during the first trimester the decision was never the woman's but the physician's (probably a man at the time), it could be said that the ultimate decision to abort was never the woman's. 

And since the pro-aborts cannot provide a line - even wanting the legal right to kill the thing already delivered and still alive  - we will. And our line is this: 



  1. Let's not call Fisher's bill the "You Decide" bill or the "Health Protection Act of 2023" as he wants. Let's always call it the "Fisher-Barnes Unlimited Abortion Bill."

    1. Or "The CHamoru Self-Extinction Act of 2023"

    2. Yes. That's more accurate. I'll use it. Thanks.

  2. I wonder if the pro-aborts ever consider themselves lucky that their mother did not abort them.