Abortion argument close to slavery's

Harry Reid's comparison of the current "health care" debate to the slavery issue offended me.

He has a point, however misguided. The Democrats opposed the end of slavery. Reid also compared his foes to those who opposed women's suffrage and the civil rights movement - it was Sen. Thurmond, a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery.

Once again, the Democrats are on the wrong side of civil rights.

Let's clarify: When Sen. Obama wouldn't vote to pass the Born Alive Infants Protection Act to provide care for survivals of abortion, he reasoned, "Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a 9-month old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

This is the same argument that was used by proponents of slavery.

We Americans must complete this final chapter of our civil rights movement by protecting the most innocent and defenseless Americans, our unborn.

This so-called health reform bill will bankrupt America both morally fiscally. There is nothing healthy about abortion or trillion dollar deficits.

Susan C. Vander Veen

Geneva