Previous post
Next post
Our country is going to Hell in a Handcart. Everything we count on is cattywampus. BUT, the Democrats have one issue they plan on pummeling Donald Trump and every Republican with and that is abortion. Women in every corner of this great land and of every age, will be forced to give birth, or die trying, to unwanted babies, now that the issue has been returned to the States. Shockingly, this may be a winning issue for the Democrats.
“Pummeling” comes from an unfortunate Politico article “How Biden’s campaign plans to pummel Trump on abortion”:
Joe Biden’s campaign plans to hammer Donald Trump for his role in erasing abortion rights largely by enlisting ordinary American women who have suffered from restrictions on the procedure, elevating their voices in place of the president’s own.
This approach was immediately on display this week in a Biden campaign video featuring the story of a Texas woman released after Trump announced he would defer to state-level abortion laws, some of which impose draconian limits on women and physicians. Biden himself made no appearance in the ad, except to deliver a standard campaign finance disclosure line.
Here is the political advertisement the Dem are using for this first pummeling:
The “Willow’s Box” ad is excruciating. No woman wants to go through this. No husband wants his wife to go through this. The cards on the screen reinforce this evil forced on women:
Because Donald Trump KILLED Roe v. Wade, Amanda was denied standard medical care to prevent infection, an abortion.”
Apparently, she was just sent home with a “good luck with that” after the hospital’s ethics board declined to help her. I had so many problems with the way the ad pummeled heart strings. The ad figuratively killed rational thought. I found a tweet from the American Association of Pro-Life Ob/Gyns. Thank God for them:
Using our patients' stories for political ends is disgusting. Elective induced abortion is never medically necessary, and pro-life laws do not prevent medical care. Knock it off. https://t.co/XZfezxAy79
— AAPLOG (@aaplog) April 8, 2024
The American Association of Pro-Life Ob/Gyns found three untruths in the Amanda Zurawski ad:
In other words, doctors could have legally, intentionally killed Willow by dismemberment or any other abortion method without legal penalty if Zurawki’s life was deemed to be in danger.
However, there are even more falsehoods in the ad…
LIE #1: Doctors were forced to send Zurawski home
Zurawski and the ad are blaming the overturning of Roe v. Wade for her doctors’ medically negligent failure to provide her with standard care. But doctors were not “forced to send her home.” They chose to. The standard of care for either cervical insufficiency and/or PPROM is not induced abortion.
Standard of care includes a cerclage to close the cervix when applicable and prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection, among other efforts to stop labor. If necessary, preterm delivery is carried out (not the intentional killing of abortion) when labor cannot be prevented or when doctors see signs of infection. Until that point, the woman should remain under the watchful eyes of a medical team — not be told there’s ‘nothing we can do’ as Zurawski was.
Zurawski said, “It took three days at home until I became sick ‘enough’ that the ethics board at our hospital agreed we could begin medical treatment; three days until my life was considered at risk ‘enough’ for the inevitable premature delivery of my daughter to be performed; three days until the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals were allowed to do their jobs.” (emphasis added)
Zurawski’s doctors were not prevented from acting to provide her with standard care. Her doctors and the “ethics board” were allowed to “do their jobs,” but they didn’t. Zurawski should be suing them for neglect.
LIE #2: Preterm delivery is an abortion
Zurawski and the ad claim she needed an abortion, but she didn’t need one, nor did she have one.
She said it herself — she underwent a preterm delivery. Preterm delivery, even when induced to save the mother, is not an abortion if the intent of the delivery is not to cause the child’s death. In Zurawski’s case, the intent of delivery was to save her life, not to cause harm or death to Willow.
As AAPLOG has noted, “There is a night and day difference between induced abortion and separating a mother and her unborn child for the purposes of saving a mother’s life (preterm parturition). There are times when separating the mother and her unborn child is necessary to save the life of the mother, even if the unborn child is too premature to live. In those tragic cases, if possible the life of the baby will be attempted to be preserved, and if not possible, the body of the unborn child is treated with respect, recognizing the humanity of the life which is lost in the separation. In contrast, the purpose of an induced abortion is to produce a dead baby.” (emphasis added)
Both Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic list treatment options for cervical insufficiency and PPROM on their websites. Neither mentions abortion or termination of pregnancy as a treatment for these conditions, and Cleveland Clinic states that a cerclage is effective in 90% of cases of cervical insufficiency.
LIE #3: Women who miscarry need abortion
The ad claims that Zurawski had a miscarriage and therefore needed an abortion. This makes no sense.
A miscarriage occurs when a preborn child dies naturally in the womb. Sometimes a woman’s body doesn’t deliver the baby’s body quickly enough and doctors will offer to carry out a D&C procedure or give the woman misoprostol to remove the baby’s deceased remains. In a miscarriage, the baby has already died, so these treatment options are not considered abortions.
Even though these same methods are often used to intentionally end a child’s life in an induced abortion, removing the body of a child who has died naturally in the womb is not legally considered an abortion and is not prohibited by law.
In fact, no woman who has experienced a miscarriage or gone into preterm labor or whose baby has died naturally late in pregnancy has undergone an induced abortion to deliver that child. And it’s cruel and entirely false to suggest that they have.
Nothing was preventing Zurawski’s doctors from providing her with standard medical care or from delivering Willow when necessary — except, perhaps, for their own self-centered negligence.
I am sorry that was such a long blockquote.
Finally, the reason why I think this particular pummeling might work was illustrated at Book Club last night in West Knoxville. We are a group of educated, White women. We have been together for a long time. I thought I knew them. Last night, Book Club opened with about eight of the ten women emotionally bereft because abortion is not currently readily available. None of these women is likely to turn up pregnant, in any event. Here are the basics of the Tennessee abortion law from the Tennessean:
The so-called trigger ban is the Tennessee ban on nearly all abortions that was triggered by the Supreme Court ruling this summer that effectively overturned Roe v. Wade.
The 2019 state law, designed for that eventuality, makes performing an abortion a felony. The law provides no exceptions for cases of incest or rape.
Doctors performing abortions on women in order to save their lives could, in theory, be subject to arrest and criminal charges. Though the state law allows them to use that reason as a defense in any such case against them.
Women who seek illegal abortions would not be subject to criminal prosecution under the law.
It doesn’t really matter. What shocked me is that with whom women I have had such fellowship for years could believe that elective abortion is such a viable option. I thought it was just blue-haired, nose ring wearing, flaming Liberal women.
I am still in a state of shock. We need to be very careful. Not give in to the pro-baby killing crowd. Just be careful. Color my world: rocked.
Featured Image: rchristie/ryanFlickr.com/cropped/Creative Commons
Scott says: The left has spent 50 years screeching that “abortion is healthcare” we have multiple generations who have been indoctrinated into this death cult, in school, in the media, and elsewhere. Sadly, it is not surprising that so many women believe this, they’ve been bombarded with it since at least early childhood.
This is what happens when the left infiltrates all aspects of society,, destroys the nuclear family, religion, and all the other pillars upon which this great nation was founded.
Pray and prepare!
A reader says: First of all the AAPLOG is lying.
1. As Amanda stated in her testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary committee last year, her doctors made their decision because of how vague the Texas law is. What does “life in danger” mean exactly? At what point can a doctor decide with certainty that the choice they make will not result in a fine, incarceration, a loss of their medical license or all three? Just because Amanda was at risk of an infection at the time doesn’t mean they could have treated her. If they had and the state medical board determined it was unnecessary, what then? This is the main issue with the abhorrent heartbeat bills. According to Amanda’s testimony, her baby had a heartbeat. And that’s what prevented doctor’s from doing anything. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/the-assault-on-reproductive-rights-in-a-post-dobbs-america
Also a cerclage is typical performed very early in a pregnancy at risk for PPROM. But the thing about PPROM is that women aren’t often shown to be at risk until it happens, and by then a cerclage will do no good. This was Amanda’s first baby so how would anyone know she was at risk? If she had an incompetent cervix, that can only be diagnosed once you’re pregnant. So often a first pregnancy like Amanda’s ends in tragedy but the second time they can monitor and perform a cerclage. I will agree that they should have given Amanda antibiotics but without speaking to her doctors or reviewing her medical records, none of us can say with certainty why that didn’t happen. Maybe they were waiting for the infection to set in to best fight it? Or maybe they were covering their butts to show intervention was truly necessary as there was now a live issue?
2. What she needed absolutely was an abortion. Because no matter how much this author or AAPLOG wants to deny actual science, a fetus is not viable at 18 weeks. Amanda was 18 weeks pregnant, and what she needed would have been coded as an abortion by the hospital and insurance because her body wasn’t naturally miscarrying on its own in enough time to prevent an infection or complications. If the baby has to be forced out of the womb, especially before viability, it’s an abortion. Full stop. Even if a woman has to be induced, which is what should have happened here. (See https://www.aapprom.org/community/ppromfacts facts about the condition.) I personally know two women who had PPROM and thankfully both were induced. And both were before viability. But again, they didn’t induce because of Texas’ heartbeat law.
3. This is a truly disgusting lie. Because what is a D & C and why is it coded as an abortion for insurance? If a woman cannot fully expel all the contents of a miscarriage then she needs what is, technically, an abortion. Purposefully parsing words or misconstruing medical coding doesn’t change that fact.
There are numerous situations where abortions are medically necessary: preeclampsia before about 24 weeks, PPROM, ectopic pregnancy, twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome where one twin is dying and impacting the survival of the other, etc. To deny those realities is disgusting and using one’s position for political talking points. It’s also denying reality and the lived, heartbreaking and, thankfully rare, reality that some women experience. I suspect that hearing real stories, both Amanda’s and from women they know, is what’s caused a shift among the women the author knows. Maybe she should take time to listen to those stories and not think she knows everything when it comes to women and pregnancy. I also wonder if it were her daughter or niece or granddaughter or daughter-in-law in one of those situations she’d be singing a different tune. Sadly, I suspect not, though,
Scott says: Sorry sparky, as usual, you’re wrong on almost everything..
“. This was Amanda’s first baby so how would anyone know she was at risk?”. Nearly 27 years ago, my wife had her first and only pregnancy, she WAS diagnosed with an incompetent cervix, and had a cerclage placed
“Because no matter how much this author or AAPLOG wants to deny actual science, a fetus is not viable at 18 weeks. ” Wrong again, definitions of viability vary, depending on the situation, and the accuracy of the gestational estimate. While survivability at that age is very low, it is NOT zero
“There are numerous situations where abortions are medically necessary: preeclampsia before about 24 weeks, PPROM, ectopic pregnancy,”.. You are on a roll.. My son was born at 27 1/2 week, 26 years ago (when that was considered at or before the limit of viability.. see how technology moves that needle?) at 12 weeks gestation, his twin which was an ectopic pregnancy ruptured and we lost him. but both my wife and my son survived, no abortion needed.
See, in my case alone, and I’m hardly alone, you were wrong on three of your above points… just imagine how wrong you are when you look at the nation as a whole…
You really don’t come here for the hunting, do you?
Cameron says: I’m not sure what is worse: The fact that killing children is the only argument the Democrats have on their side or that it’s effective.
The holy trinity of rape, incest and life of the mother is less than 5% of abortions combined and that is the point that should be used.
4 Comments