Hawaii House Representative Tulsi Gabbard checks a lot of boxes for the left. She is “of color” as a native Hawaiian. She is female. And she is obviously for women in power.
However, as much as she may seem to be everything the political left wants and more, she has a strong tendency to go against the grain and stand for the not so popular ideas of the Democratic Party.
Take the controversial topic of abortion, for example.
While most of the party seems content to let abortion be entirely about the woman’s choice, Tulsi is one of the few that believes in abortion for its original purpose – to save lives, not take them.
You see, when the Democratic Party first introduced abortion in the 1990s, it was given the classification of being something that should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Safe and legal because women were illegally having it done anyway, and as it was against the law, most places where it was performed were less than sanitary or “safe.”
But it was believed that it should also be rare, in that it should occur to prevent a delivery or the carrying of a child from endangering a woman’s life.
Obviously, the “rare” has been dropped from its classification in recent years, and liberals are out to push abortion on non-suspecting women as a way to ensure their dependence on no one and female power.
But in doing so, the party has lost the support of some 20 something million supporters who, while being Democrat, are also very pro-life.
In 2016, Kristen Day and Charles Camosy wrote in an Op-Ed piece for the Los Angeles Times, “The party that is supposedly on the side of justice for the vulnerable no longer welcomes those of us who #ChooseBoth. That is, those of us who want the government to protect and support prenatal children and their mothers.”
Gabbard is stepping up where they left off and pushing for balance to this one or the other view.
This month Gabbard has introduced two separate bills on the issue – HR8923 and HR 8939.
The first would seek to change the wording of Title 18 of the US Criminal code to “ensure a health care practitioner exercises the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”
Abortions, as “safe” and “legal” as they are, don’t always work. And what is left behind is an even greater tragedy. These surviving children are often born with severe deformities or illnesses. And the question is what to do with them then. Sadly, it has been found that many have been left to die, even if they are healthy and whole.
Gabbard’s bill would do more to ensure that these lives are treated as such, an actual living breathing person, and not just an unwanted object.
A week after filing this bill, Gabbard prosed another, this time on when an abortion can be carried out.
As you likely know, this has been a topic of great discussion for some time. As a complete pro-life enthusiast, I believe life begins at conception, making all abortions an act of murder. However, like failed presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, some claim that abortions can be done even right up until the day of birth, as the child is not yet breathing on its own.
Gabbard, once again, is fighting for a balance between the two.
This bill would also change Title 18 of the US criminal code but seek to give an unborn child right due to the ability to feel pain. After all, it’s hard to deny that something that feels pain isn’t a living creature. The only question is when exactly that is.
According to a study done in March 2017, the biological research journal Cell noted that unborn children could feel pain as early as the first trimester. However, a similar study published by BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics this year states that 13 weeks could be when a fetus begins to feel sensations such as pain.
Now, I’m not saying this is precisely what she believes. It could be that she believes like I do, but rather than pushing for something she knows she can’t get at the moment, she is making baby steps, starting with the ability to feel pain.
In any case, I think Gabbard is making strides in the right direction. And I’m not the only one.
Pro-Life San Francisco celebrated the proposals calling them “fundamental to ensuring justice for UCSF’s most vulnerable victims of fetal organ harvesting, and we are inspired to see them originate from a left-leaning national legislator.”