A law called the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was passed in 1918 to protect certain species of birds. Then, in 1972, it was amended and expanded, increasing the protection for the nests and eggs of even more species.
It can bring a maximum penalty of two years in prison, or a $250,000 fine, for a felony conviction. In 2014, a Kansas construction contractor was fined $372,750 for destroying cliff swallow nests and eggs during a bridge repair project.
Approximately a year ago, the road between Emerald and Denton was closed for bridge repair. Construction was forced to stop, for several months, disrupting major traffic, when swallow nests, with eggs, were discovered under the bridge.
In the 1970s, Democrats held major control of Congress, and the Supreme Court held a liberal slant. So I find it ironic that, in 1972, birds in the eggs of their mother were protected, when, in 1973, an egg in the womb of it’s mother was made legal to be aborted.
It seems Democrats in our country feel that baby birds in the shell, from their mother, hold more credibility than the baby human in the womb of their mother. I would like to hear any Democrat explain this conflict of law, why they protect unborn birds, but not unborn humans, from abortion.
Merlyn Braunsroth, Denton