A radically different Boxer amendment

During a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee meeting on environmental regulation, California Senator Barbara Boxer made a dramatic statement. And it wasn’t about polar bears or gas emissions. It was about the impact on human beings.

She admitted that protecting a pregnant woman means protecting an unborn child. That’s startling for a staunch ‘abortion rights’ defender.

Her admission happened while the Senate panel was reviewing a bill involving the dollar value assessment the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assigns to human life in environmental decisions.  Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), an established pro-life advocate, wanted to amend the bill to include considerations for unborn life.

“My amendment directs EPA to also establish and properly consider the statistical value of the conceived, unborn life,” said Sen. Inhofe.   “Given this Committee’s recent focus on children’s health it seems only consistent that we would want EPA to also properly value the life of the least protected class – the unborn children.”

Very wise. And true.

Sen. Boxer became clearly vexed at the mention of unborn life, saying, “Even the Bush administration has never brought the question of when life begins to an environmental regulation.  It was my understanding that you were not going to do this, and now you’re doing it.”

While Inhofe’s amendment was ultimately rejected, Boxer herself introduced an amendment stressing that the valuations should cover pregnant women, whom twice she characterized as carrying unborn children. 

Good for her. Good move. 

At one point during the meeting, Boxer said, in reference to pregnant women, “You can talk about it any way you want, but she’s carrying a child.”  A second time she said, “I would just like to state the obvious.  When a woman is pregnant, and I was, you’re carrying a child and if you protect the pregnant woman, you’re protecting that whole entire pregnancy.”

Credit is due to Sen. Boxer for her intellectual honesty.