They New York Times goes all in on their support for killing unborn babies. A recent Op-Ed by a late term abortion provider about the “dangers” of pregnancy, and an article about the semantics battle in the abortion debate, show the New York Times pushing more agenda than news.
Late Term Abortionist Warren Hern’s Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, “Pregnancy is a life threatening condition”, implies that pregnancy is riskier than having an abortion. He cites statistics like,
In Alabama, the overall maternal mortality ratio in 2018 was 11.9 per 100,000. Among white women, the 2018 maternal mortality ratio was 5.6; among black women, it was 27.6, making black women in Alabama almost five times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy than white women. “
Going so far as to say that,
But pregnancy itself poses a “serious health risk” — including the risk of dying and losing all bodily functions. A woman’s life and health are at risk from the moment that a pregnancy exists in her body, whether she wants to be pregnant or not.”
What he doesn’t address is the almost 100% death rate of aborted babies. Never once in his litany of treatable health conditions does he pause to consider that the fetus is ultimately the only one guaranteed to actually die. There are many ways to treat the complications of maternal health during pregnancy. Even in emergency situations, treatment is available and medical staff are trained to provide it. But this doesn’t stop Warren’s focus on the comparative risks of pregnancy versus abortion.
a study in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology on abortion mortality from 1998 to 2010 found that for the 16.1 million abortions performed during that time, the overall death rate was 0.7 per 100,000 procedures. The death rate for early-abortion procedures — those that took place within the first eight weeks of the pregnancy — was less: 0.3 per 100,000. Pregnancy is dangerous; abortion can be lifesaving.”
Try telling that to the aborted baby. The way I see it, for every 100,000 abortions the death rate is at least 100,000 humans.
Warren Hern is a self proclaimed pioneer in the field of second and third trimester abortions. His website proudly states that,
“To these ends, I have developed several techniques for late abortion and designed numerous surgical instruments; other physicians now use many of these techniques and instruments across the U.S. and around the world. Continuing research and development of the best and safest ways of terminating pregnancy has been a major goal at Boulder Abortion Clinic since I founded my private practice in 1975.”
I am repulsed by the last sentence. But it’s not surprising coming from someone who wants to continue R&D into the best way to kill babies
Unsurprisingly, his website also lists his bibliography of published works. The prolific list is filled with papers titled, “Why are there so many of us? Description and diagnosis of a planetary ecopathological process” and “Has the human species become a cancer on the Planet?: A theoretical view of population growth as a sign of pathology” is a window into someone whose writing implies that humans are a scourge on the earth. His “profession” certainly allows him the ability to put his ideals into practice.
In the case of the Alabama law he’s looking for loopholes. God Bless the babies if he finds it.
Perhaps the goal of the Alabama law, in addition to triggering a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, may be to discourage doctors from even practicing medicine in that state, lest they be accused of performing an illegal abortion and sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives. Perhaps the vagueness of the law and the confusion is the point. Vagueness and confusion are tools of tyranny.”
These are actual reviews posted on his webpage, “…he told funny jokes.” In response to the query about staff providing a positive experience, “Yes, definitely. I didn’t feel bashed or belittled. I feel at ease with my decision. Before I came here I felt disgusted with myself but you made me feel like it was OK and you were all here to help.” Then there is this one about the overall experience, “I put a great deal of thought in before coming. The staff here was understanding and willing to listen, making the procedure easier to go through. I’d call this a very positive experience. I also appreciated all the info I found on your web site. Learning more about the procedure and Dr. Hern calmed any residual fear/anxiety I had.”
He told jokes. Made a positive environment for the women in his office while he extracted their unborn babies from the womb.
Warren Hern, making jokes while doing this.
As abortion opponents push the term “fetal heartbeat,” abortion rights activists are trying to galvanize support by focusing on the impact the recently passed bans can have on people’s lives https://t.co/gTpEUO3sFk
— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 23, 2019
The Alabama law restricting abortions has set the pro-abortion crowd on fire. They see every restriction as one step into a dystopian society, where they are forced to carry pregnancies. First off, don’t get pregnant. If there is an “oh crap” moment then use Plan B. There are so many options available to prevent pregnancy that I’m shocked anyone has an unwanted pregnancy. Birth Control does have a failure rate, but it’s slim. It seems the pro-abortion crowd is loosing ground in their quest for unrestricted abortion on demand. What’s the plan when the battle isn’t going well? Change the language used to describe the actions. Now we will hear, “forced pregnancy” in response to carrying a baby they’d rather abort.
Writing in the NY Times, Amy Harmon shares,
The battle over abortion has long been shaped by language. After abortion opponents coined the “pro-life” phrase in the 1960s to emphasize what they saw as the humanity of the fetus, supporters of abortion cast themselves as “pro-choice” to stress a woman’s right to make decisions about her body. In the mid-1990s, the term “partial-birth abortion,” originated by the anti-abortion group National Right to Life, helped rally public opinion against a late-term abortion procedure. Abortion rights activists countered with “Trust Women.” But the stakes attached to the language of abortion are especially high, activists on both sides say, at a time when the Supreme Court is seen as likely to chip away at the right to an abortion established in 1973 by Roe v. Wade.
We can expect the language coming from the pro-abortion advocates to include revamped messaging to mobilize their supporters. Ms. Harmon continues,
“‘Heartbeat’ bills are obviously supposed to pull at your heartstrings, and the left is coming back with terms like ‘punishing women’ and ‘forced pregnancy,’” said Mary Ziegler, a legal historian at Florida State University.
I know twitter will be filled with “#punishingwomen” tags. Along with, #shoutyourabortion and #YouKnowMe the goal seems to be using direct language to shift the focus away from the baby and focus on the woman carrying the baby. Because like the patients above shared on the reviews, it’s not about a dead baby but the experience of the pregnant person. Shifting the focus from the developing human unto the woman carrying the baby means that she now has control of the narrative and is the starring player. Quite literally, it’s all about her needs and wants. Abortion is something she did when a problem arose.
Changing the language doesn’t change the fact that a person is being killed at the behest of another. Viability isn’t the issue, because there are many people, spread through multiple phases of aging, who are unable to care for themselves. The pro-abortion crowd isn’t telling people it’s okay to kill their kids or parents because it impacts their lives. But a pregnancy, with an innocent child, is game on. So as medical science advances, and Americans continue to share photographs of early ultrasound pictures and smiling “#parent’s to be!” on instagram, it forces the pro-abortion supporters to shift the language from the baby. Because if they can eliminate any thought going towards the tiny human growing inside a woman, then they can ignore that a “procedure” is actually killing someone.
I leave you with this for thought,
“We don’t use the term ‘anti-choice’ anymore,” said Destiny Lopez, a co-director of All Above All, a reproductive rights advocacy group. “That’s a euphemism that is outdated. We say anti-abortion, and what is the impact of being anti-abortion? It’s forcing someone to remain pregnant.”
Featured Image Credit: Anna Langova, Used under license Public Domain Cropped to 400×400
Welcome Instapundit readers! Thanks for the link~ NC
Small correction. There are many – not all, yet (or at least the majority doesn’t dare admit to it) – of the infant homicide supporters that also advocate for child homicide and adult homicide. Homicide of those that they consider “deficient” or “problematic.”
There is NO moral distance between these people and those who consider Hebrew, or homosexual, or sub-Saharan African genetics to be “deficient” or “problematic.”
Euthanasia. Another really good subject. I agree that there is crossover between the groups. Look at Iceland and their ability to “end Down’s Syndrome.” Aborting any baby suspected of having the abnormality will change the population make-up. While I don’t think we are yet at “Logan’s Run” or “Soylent Green”, I do see a pathway in those directions.
This was predictable. The management of the Times has decided that it can no longer hide its colors, and so the Leftist flag will fly high. Abortion being the principal sacrament of the Left — what other topic do Leftists decorate with the word “choice?” — it will be the thing they most ardently defend and promote.
But note the larger pattern for completeness. Abortion advocates have conceded that they’re killing something. Other activists have begun to refer to the unborn baby as a “parasite.” It’s a single tapestry, woven by the designers of the most virulent of the Death Cults, and they intend that no one shall escape its embrace.
JBM says: Hern is on record as stating that a fetus is a “parasite”. Truly a sick man.
4 Comments