With the overturning of Roe vs. Wade on June 24, 2022 by the Supreme Court, the laws and decisions regarding abortion was left to the discretion of each individual state. I was invited to testify at the Indiana State Senate hearing in Indianapolis, the state capital, regarding the harm that results from abortion. I gladly accepted the invitation as well as the challenge with a little uneasiness, assuming there would be protestors. Because of that I was not sure what the experience might entail. Although I am used to speaking, I prefer a friendly crowd!
1: Ready to Testify!
2: Overlooking the Right to Life Rally
3: In the State Capital overlooking the main hall
Many were in attendance for the hearing of SB1, with around twenty pro-lifers from the area who had signed up ready to testify. I do not know how or in what order participants were chosen to speak, but none of this group, myself included, were not given the opportunity. It certainly seemed like the deck was stacked against the pro-life speakers at a ratio of about 3 to 1.
There were many pro-choice protesters present. They were outside the capitol, along with lining the hallway outside the chamber where the testimonies were being held. Fortunately, there were no confrontations because we did not have to make our way through any of them. Numerous members of The Right to Life Organization were there and staged a large rally. They are pictured in the blue shirts.
It appeared that the committee knew if a person from the pro-life positions was coming to bat because a couple of members in particular would ask questions of a pro-choice person which seemed to be a stall tactic. I, along with some other pro-life people I talked to, had the impression that their thinking was that it was to their advantage to have a s few pro-life people to testify as possible. I am not sure why. Perhaps their mind was already made up which way they would cast their vote. Perhaps they chose to hear more pro-choice participants so they could vote in favor of that side and use the argument that the number of testimonies they heard out-numbered pro-life arguments. Therefore, the majority of the citizens want them to vote pro-choice. Those are a couple of my guesses.
Also, the members in particular who seemed to “stall” did not seem to listen to the pro-life speakers. They mostly looked down, looked around, or busied themselves on their phones (perhaps texting or playing games?)
Some questions they would ask of the pro-choice people came off as rather leading, such as, “so do you think it would like turning the clock back fifty years to ban abortion?” Turning back the clock 50 years is a frequent argument used on the pro-choice side since that is when abortion on demand was made legal in 1973. It was difficult to sit and listen to the lies and deception being spewed, such as:
“Abortion is healthcare.” Abortion is NOT healthcare. Abortion does not treat a disease, as healthcare does. Instead it takes the life of a baby, and does not improve the woman’s life. In fact it can jeopardize a woman’s life by causing premature deliveries, raising the risks of complication in subsequent pregnancies (such as in my case), and studies have shown it increases the risk of breast cancer. “Abortion is/was legal and safe.” It may have been legal, but that does not mean it was safe. The word “safe” means no one gets hurt. A baby suffers a horrible death, and the emotional scars and guilt left on a woman, perforated uteri, and excessive bleeding are only a few possible risks of the abortion procedure. Also chemical solutions and invasive procedures certainly are not “safe”.
As I listened to the arguments of the pro-choice side, I was saddened to know that so many people are persuaded by listening to their presentations and are backed by the liberal left media. After more than 30 years of ministering to women with abortion-wounded hearts, not one has ever said it was a simple, safe procedure. In fact, it frequently opens the door to more problems such as drug and alcohol abuse to try to dull the emotional pain as a result of the procedure.
The bill moved on to the Indiana State House and a few days after testifying at the Indiana Senate hearing, I was also invited to testify at the Indiana House on August 2, 2022. This experience proved to be a different story than testifying at the State Senate hearing.
There were many protesters, as with the Senate, and they were a very loud bunch. Although they were inside the House chambers, they were in the hallway outside. They could hear what was being said from the stand as people gave their testimonies. When a pro-choice speaker was done testifying, they would clap and cheer. When a pro-life speaker was testifying, they would be chanting their slogans of “My body, my choice,” and “Pro-life is a lie, they don’t care if people die.” How ludicrous is that since a baby gets its life taken in an abortion?
At times they were so loud that it took concentration to listen to the speaker inside the chamber. The House committee may not have agreed as a whole with the pro-life arguments, but they were at least open and much more respectful than the Indiana Senate.
I was able to give my testimony and supply every member of the committee with a copy of my book, for which I was grateful. The House made some changes to the bill, tightening up some of the language and imposed some stronger restrictions such as abortions must be done in a hospital or hospital owned surgery center, restricting, abortions after 10 weeks (with the exceptions of rape or incest, or up to 20 weeks for fetal anomalies), or if the health or life of the mother was in danger.
On August 5, 2022, the bill was passed and went into effect on September 15, 2022. With that, Indiana became a state with one of the strictest abortion laws in the country. One week later a law suit was filed by the ACLU against the new law and it is currently tied up in the Indiana Supreme Court.
As always, the battle lines remain drawn.
Comments