New York abortion law's 'health of the mother' rationale dismantled

New York's abortion law, which permits abortion up to the moment of birth, and Virginia governor Ralph Northam's open defense of infanticide have drawn a lot of attention and outrage — rightfully so.  But the actual rationale for the measure — the viability of a troubled fetus, and the health of the mother, thus far hasn't gotten much attention.

Well, until now.

Live Action founder Lila Rose, and Dr. Mary Davenport, M.D., who's an OBGYN, have taken aim at the foundation of the argument that's enabling these laws to get out there: fetal viability and mother's health.  Based on their firsthand knowledge of this, they write in The Federalist that "Late-term abortions are never medically necessary."  How many people actually know that?  Davenport is a particularly credible source on this, because she practices medicine as a mother-and-baby doctor and works with high-risk pregnancies.

Rose and Davenport write:

Defenders of this law and those like it say it is moderate and compassionate, concerned only with making sure women with life-threatening pregnancy complications are not left to die.  But if one looks at the medical and legal context for the law and understands what exactly the terms mean, it becomes clear that the reality is much less straightforward — and much darker.

The most striking aspect of their argument is in the details about what a late-term abortion entails — a two- to four-day grotesque drug process designed to slowly kill the infant, who can feel pain, instead of a simple natural or C-section childbirth, which, in a high-risk or normal pregnancy, is far safer for both the mother and the baby, and which means that the baby isn't going to be poisoned alive in the womb. 

Advocates of abortion insist that late abortion must be kept legal because certain serious maternal health problems require abortions.  This is completely false.  There is no medical situation in which late abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the mother.  In a common late abortion technique, a lethal intracardiac injection is given, and labor is induced.  This takes between two and four days and is not a procedure done in true emergency situations.

With any serious pregnancy complication, the pregnancy can be ended by inducing labor or delivering the baby via C-section — saving both the mother's and the baby's life.

The fact that abortionists often aren't as medically well certified as genuine neonatal doctors in hospitals is an additional risk to the mother in getting an abortion.  New York's law permits pretty much anyone with minimal qualification to conduct an abortion instead of a licensed physician.  Rose and Davenport warn that abortion referrals are often based on ignorance of other physicians, and the laws are skewed, too, with doctors compelled to warn of risks in pregnancy but not compelled to warn of risks in abortion, which are very high.  With the risks of abortion unstated to patients, and the medical qualifications of the personnel low, the casualty count of the mothers killed in the "procedure" along with their babies is likely to climb.

The entire argument breaks the rationale for the law apart at the foundation and is important new information that does well to get out there.  Read the whole thing.

New York's abortion law, which permits abortion up to the moment of birth, and Virginia governor Ralph Northam's open defense of infanticide have drawn a lot of attention and outrage — rightfully so.  But the actual rationale for the measure — the viability of a troubled fetus, and the health of the mother, thus far hasn't gotten much attention.

Well, until now.

Live Action founder Lila Rose, and Dr. Mary Davenport, M.D., who's an OBGYN, have taken aim at the foundation of the argument that's enabling these laws to get out there: fetal viability and mother's health.  Based on their firsthand knowledge of this, they write in The Federalist that "Late-term abortions are never medically necessary."  How many people actually know that?  Davenport is a particularly credible source on this, because she practices medicine as a mother-and-baby doctor and works with high-risk pregnancies.

Rose and Davenport write:

Defenders of this law and those like it say it is moderate and compassionate, concerned only with making sure women with life-threatening pregnancy complications are not left to die.  But if one looks at the medical and legal context for the law and understands what exactly the terms mean, it becomes clear that the reality is much less straightforward — and much darker.

The most striking aspect of their argument is in the details about what a late-term abortion entails — a two- to four-day grotesque drug process designed to slowly kill the infant, who can feel pain, instead of a simple natural or C-section childbirth, which, in a high-risk or normal pregnancy, is far safer for both the mother and the baby, and which means that the baby isn't going to be poisoned alive in the womb. 

Advocates of abortion insist that late abortion must be kept legal because certain serious maternal health problems require abortions.  This is completely false.  There is no medical situation in which late abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the mother.  In a common late abortion technique, a lethal intracardiac injection is given, and labor is induced.  This takes between two and four days and is not a procedure done in true emergency situations.

With any serious pregnancy complication, the pregnancy can be ended by inducing labor or delivering the baby via C-section — saving both the mother's and the baby's life.

The fact that abortionists often aren't as medically well certified as genuine neonatal doctors in hospitals is an additional risk to the mother in getting an abortion.  New York's law permits pretty much anyone with minimal qualification to conduct an abortion instead of a licensed physician.  Rose and Davenport warn that abortion referrals are often based on ignorance of other physicians, and the laws are skewed, too, with doctors compelled to warn of risks in pregnancy but not compelled to warn of risks in abortion, which are very high.  With the risks of abortion unstated to patients, and the medical qualifications of the personnel low, the casualty count of the mothers killed in the "procedure" along with their babies is likely to climb.

The entire argument breaks the rationale for the law apart at the foundation and is important new information that does well to get out there.  Read the whole thing.