A Democrat's View of Religious Freedom

Last week, the Senate voted 56-41 in favor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and 53-44 in favor of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.  The former would require an abortionist to transfer a child who survived an abortion to a hospital while the latter would have banned abortions after 20 weeks since this is the point where most science concedes the child can feel pain.  This writer is not quite sure of statistics on the number of babies who survive an abortion, but one surmises it is not a very large number.  After all, the abortionists have perfected the art of murder.  Thus, it would send a message that at very least Democrats do not have such a callous disregard for human life (unless they are an illegal immigrant child rapist or killer).  But, they just could not go there.


Progressives are all for science when it fits their narratives, but when it comes to abortion, all that reliance on science is tossed away like fetal remains in the medical waste vat.  Regardless of when a human begins to feel pain in the womb, we know they develop a heartbeat, neuronal connections, and even fingerprints.  This is all scientifically proven, as is the fact they recoil from painful stimuli at about 20 weeks of gestation.  Unfortunately, all of this proven science is to be ignored when there is a higher morality involved to these progressives: the ever popular “reproductive rights” agenda.

Which, to this writer, is fine.  If they want to be scientifically ignorant and refuse to save the life of a baby that survives an abortion creating a public relations optical debacle, then they are free to go down those paths.  What they do not have the right to do is hide behind religion doing so.

Enter New York “senator” and former presidential wannabe, Kirsten Gillibrand.  Those vote totals cited above failed to pass the legislation since it takes 60 votes to end the “filibuster” for most legislation in the Senate.  Afterward, Gillibrand ran to the friendly confines of MSNBC to explain her vote:

This is part of President Trump and Mitch McConnell’s all-out assault on women. They’re trying to harm women. They’re trying to take away their civil rights, their human rights, their ability to make the most important, intimate decisions of their lives. They’re taking away their religious freedom. They’re taking away their moral freedom. [Emphasis mine]


How such laws take away “their religious freedom” is never fully explained, and being MSNBC, no one dared follow up.  In the past, she has asserted that banning abortion at any point in gestation went against “free will” and was a “violation of the separation between church and state.”  Just as Nancy Pelosi’s Catholicism prevents her from hating Trump but supporting abortion, Gillibrand fails to address how supporting abortion violates a basic Biblical (that is, religious) fact: Thou Shalt not Kill, not to mention prohibitions on “spilling the blood of innocents.”

With the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, let us not mince words.  We are talking about late-term abortion.  Such abortions are sought for the very same reasons women seek abortions at earlier parts of a pregnancy: convenience.  It is not because they were raped or the victim of incest.  Their lives are not in danger.  Even the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute has shown the reasons given for a late term abortion when the unborn is viable are the same for a woman seeking an abortion before 20 weeks.

That same week, in response to a question, current presidential wannabe Amy Klobuchar was asked about abortion.  She again proclaimed her pro-choice credentials, but there was a difference this time- it occurred on Fox, not MSNBC and there was a follow up.  When asked when life begins, Klobuchar calmly refused and failed to answer the question, instead invoking all the pro-choice talking points.


Now, this must be compared against an instance of true religious freedom being protected, but this time in a context different from abortion- gay rights.  The city of Louisville, Kentucky adopted, but has yet to enforce, an ordinance which states that a business cannot deny a customer “full and equal” enjoyment of goods, services, privileges, advantages, or public accommodations on the basis of various attributes, including sexual orientation.  It further forbids businesses from any communication suggesting the ordinance or requirements are “discrimination” against businesses.  Even a cretin could see the obvious First Amendment problems with the latter part of the ordinance.

This time around, the Trump administration is weighing in on the side of Chelsey Nelson who is a photographer in the city who refuses to lend her services to gay weddings on religious grounds.  The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ has signed a Letter of Interest in the case asserting that “weddings are sacred rites in the religious realm and profoundly symbolic ceremonies in the secular one.”  Recognizing Ms. Nelson’s deep religious beliefs and allowing her to run her business accordingly is what the DOJ is arguing here.  She holds no secrets about her religious beliefs, gay marriage, and even refuses to photograph weddings with trivial themes, like Halloween.  It should also be noted there are 91 other photographers in Louisville who advertise their willingness to do gay weddings.


Pete Buttigieg epitomizes the opposite view.  When questioned about adoption services that will not adopt babies to gay couples, he simply declares it “discrimination.”  This what he said at that CNN gay-themed town hall:

Of course, it is so important to the fabric of the country that people of every religion and no religion can practice their faith to the best of their conscience. But, like any other freedom, that freedom ends where you begin to invoke it to harm other people. Just as the freedom of speech, or any other freedom, is constrained by that. We all treasure our freedom of speech, but nobody here has the freedom to yell ‘Fire’ in this crowded space. It is the same way with religious liberty. We respect, and I will fiercely defend, religious liberty — but not past the point where it is being invoked as an excuse to harm other people through this kind of discrimination.

Here is the translation: When matters of conscience are pitted against the demands of the LGBT community, those demands trump religious freedom.  Therefore, orphaned children must sacrifice what is best for them (a traditional mother and father) for the personal fulfillment of gay couples.  Hence, homosexuals are bigger victims than orphan children.

Perhaps people like Gillibrand and Buttigieg should spend some time in flyover country and specifically visit Louisville, Kentucky and talk to Ms. Nelson, the photographer.  In 17 words, she encapsulated what religious freedom is all about when she said: “My highest aim in life is to honor God, and that informs everything I do, business included.”  That makes more sense than the twisted, contorted paragraphs of nonsense that come from the lips of Gillibrand and Buttigieg.  




Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos