There is No Reason for Late-Term Abortion

Kermit Gosnell 25

Late-term abortionist, Dr Kermit Gosnell

There is no reason for late-term abortions.

Abortion supporters are fond of saying that people like Dr Kermit Gosnell, the late Dr George Tiller and Dr LeRoy Carhart perform a “necessary service” for “desperate women” when they “provide” late term abortions.

Not true.

Not even close to being true.

There is no reason for a late-term abortion. None. Zip. Zilch. 

Designall dll

 The legislators I work with, and (I would guess) much of the general public, lives in a fantasy land about abortion. They seem to think that an elective abortion involves a preternatural procedure where the doctor waves a medical magic wand over the pregnant woman and — poof! — she is no longer pregnant.

In their self-consoling dream world, abortion is just a re-wind that doesn’t put women through a surgery or, in the case of late-term abortions, a labor and delivery. All they will allow themselves to think that happens with “safe, legal abortion” is that the woman pays her money and is, through a miraculous medical intervention, made unpregnant.

In this fantasy world, there are no dismembered little baby bodies and their scrambled parts to reassemble and check to make sure the abortion is complete. In fantasy abortions, women do not experience pain during the fantasy procedure and danger is non-existent. 

This “thing” that will one day “become a baby” is not a human being. In the cowardly imaginations of those who won’t face facts, no one suffers, no one dies, and in fact, nothing much happens in an abortion. It’s all painless, deathless problem solving for problems they don’t want to actually solve.

That’s where most of the resistance to pro life legislation lives. It is a product of convenient lies that allow people to do monstrous things and keep their own mental skirts clean, at least so long as they box themselves off from reality and never know the truth. 

This nonsense about “necessary services” for “desperate women” concerning the work of Gosnell/Tiller/Carhart is  fantasy carried to the point of deliberate delusion. 

Let’s stop for a moment and try thinking about the reality rather than the fantasy.

Pregnant

Late-term abortion refers to the deliberate killing of babies whose mothers are far along in their pregnancies. That’s where the phrase “late-term” comes from. What does that mean? It means that the baby looks like a baby, acts like a baby, sounds like a baby and, if it’s born at this point, would have a fighting chance of living like a baby. 

Late-term abortions are performed on women who advanced months into their pregnancies before their “desperation” set in. This “service” requires that the women be put through horrific medical procedures that involve giving them large doses of contraction-stimulating hormones to induce unusually violent and painful labor and delivery. A nurse who assisted in these things told me that the doctors they worked for deliberately stimulated contractions so violent that the contractions would usually kill the baby while it was being born.

Aside from what this does to the baby, what do you think it does to the woman? The grisly and illegal procedure we call “partial birth abortion” requires that the baby be delivered feet first, then the delivery stopped so that the doctor can suction out the baby’s brain before it is legally born. Proponents of this procedure talked about how it was necessary for “women’s health.” But I ask you, aside from what it does to the baby, what do you think that does to the woman? How is that consistent with “women’s health?”

I’m not talking about her emotions here. I am talking about labor and delivery practices that are painful, dangerous and quite horrible for the woman. How is this something that protects “women’s health?”

The answer is, it doesn’t.

In addition to what this does to the woman, consider for a moment that many of these babies must be deliberately killed before the procedure takes place to keep them from being born alive. The way I’ve heard that this is usually done is to give the baby a shot of poison directly into its heart. This means jabbing a needle through the mother’s abdomen and into the baby. It means the mother has to feel her baby thrash around the avoid the needle, then feel it die. All this is done to keep the legal fiction that this late-term abortion is not, in fact, a cold-blooded murder.

In spite of this, many of these babies are born alive. The doctor might miss the mark and not shoot the poison into the baby’s heart. Or, the dose might be too small. Or, the doctor doesn’t administer the death-dealing drug and the baby is strong enough to survive the excessively violent contractions the doctor puts the mother through.

Gianna jessen 500x625

Gianna Jessen, survived late-term abortion as a baby.

 However it happens, babies do manage to survive these deliberate attempts to medically murder them and are born alive. When that happens, what does a doctor do? For decades, they killed these babies. Changes in the law now require them to administer medical care to the babies, but as we’ve learned, that doesn’t always happen.

How does all this support my contention that late-term abortion is never necessary? What about abortion to save the mother’s life?

The answer is so obvious it’s hard to believe people don’t see it. 

Premature baby

If the woman is going to have to go through a labor and delivery anyway, there is no reason whatsoever to kill the baby. If the mother’s life is at stake, all that needs to be done is deliver the baby. Then, do your medical best to save both the child and its mother. 

There is no reason to kill these babies. There is no medical reason. No moral reason. No situation that requires it.

In some instances, late-term abortions are performed on very young girls. Proponents don’t argue their case, because they don’t have one. They simply point to the young girl and yammer about how can anyone “force” her to have a child. Their whole argument is based on the magic rewind fantasy abortion.

It ignores the fact that a late-term abortion will put the young girl through a much harsher labor and delivery than she would experience if she received life-saving medical care designed to save both her and her baby. It ignores the reality that the baby is already here. There is a child.

All late-term abortion does is kill the child. It does not save the mother anything. It is not “necessary” and it is not done to “save” “desperate” women. 

There is no reason for late-term abortion. 

Savita Halappanavar: Bad Laws Kill

Bad laws kill.

Bad laws are dangerous. They have serious consequences for innocent people.

A case in point is the Irish law concerning abortion and the death of Savita Halappanavar.

I haven’t written anything about this tragedy because I couldn’t make sense of the press reports. I still can’t figure them out. There is mention of a septic e-coli infection, which so far as my limited medical knowledge goes, would probably be treated by antibiotics and fluids. Everyone seems to agree that Ms Halappanavar requested an abortion and was refused one by what sounds like medical personnel with the statement that “this is a Catholic country.” The other indisputable fact is that Ms Halappanavar died after what could only have been an agonizing period of suffering and lack of good medical care.

I don’t understand how an abortion might have helped her survive an e coli infection. I also don’t understand how she got an e coli infection or why it wasn’t treated appropriately. I’m not, mind you, making judgements here. These are questions for which I do not have answers.

The statement by the medical person that “this is a Catholic country” pulled the Catholic Church into the subsequent public debate about what happened to Ms Halappanavar. A lot of people who sincerely think that the Church hates women were quick to jump in and say “Told ya so!” Others spent a good bit of time trying to defend the Church with explanations that Catholic teaching does not forbid that women be given medical care, including treatment that can end a pregnancy, if the reason for doing so is to not for the direct purpose of killing the baby.

Theologians traded brickbats with outraged humanitarians and nobody understood anybody else. They weren’t speaking the same language and they have such a low opinion of one another that it precludes them trying to speak the same language.

Meanwhile, I kept circling back to the one thing I thought I understood about this tragedy: Somebody wrote a law that caused it.

Irish law isn’t like American law, so it’s hard for me to understand it or to know if I’ve gotten the right facts. I’ve spent some time reading the Irish Constitution, perusing Irish court cases, and checking statutes concerning abortion from centuries past. I still don’t really know for sure what it means, and I think that is the problem. I don’t think anyone knows what Irish law concerning abortion means.

The Irish Constitution makes a statement concerning abortion which reads more like a hatched up attempt to be theological than an honest try at creating a law that would lead to functional civil governance. It is more a statement of intent than anything else. I’ve been writing laws for 17 years, and I can tell you I don’t know how this thing is enforced or even what, exactly, it means.

The only part of it that actually is clear is the part that grants women the right to travel overseas to obtain an abortion and the right to give information about an abortion. Subsequent court cases have gone back and forth with these items until they’ve become convoluted in practice.

Here’s what the Irish Constitution says. I didn’t believe that this was all of Irish law on this matter at first, which is why I did the research. I’m going to set the worst part of it in bold face. Remember that the emphases are mine.

 

Ireland’s restriction on abortion is found in Article 40.3.3 of their Constitution. The latest amended version states:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state. Ir. Const., 1937, art 40.3.3

 

I don’t know if what I’m going to say will make sense to the people reading this, but that is not a law. It doesn’t say anything. Since it is in the Irish Constitution, I had assumed that there were further statutes that made sense of it. But I couldn’t find them and neither could the people who helped me research this. Read that paragraph I put in bold carefully. Does it tell anyone in the medical profession what they may or may not do?

There may be (hopefully there are) legal definitions of the terms this statement uses in other places in Irish law. There may be (hopefully there are) codifications and further statutes making sense of this. All I know is that when I researched Irish abortion law and case law about giving information about abortion and going to other states to obtain an abortion, this is what I was given.

How, based on this, is a doctor supposed to know what they may or may not do under Irish law to save a pregnant woman’s life? For that matter, how will they know what they may do to save the baby’s life? It ties their hands with confusion in either instance.

How are doctors supposed to “respect” the “equal right to life” of both the baby and the mother? What, in legal terms and in medical terms does “respect” mean? For that matter, what do “right to life” and “vindicate” mean?

I’m not nit-picking. Laws are built with words and words have meanings. For laws to be enforceable, the definitions of their words must be public and agreed upon.

Unless there are further codifications I don’t know about, or these things are legal terms of art in Ireland, this law is meaningless. It’s a statement. It’s a little speech. It gives some sort of vague intent. But it has no meaning.

That makes it a set-up for selective prosecution. By that I mean that if this truly is all there is to it, this law puts the entire decision as to what is or is not acceptable medical practice in dire situations concerning a pregnant woman in the hands of the prosecutor. Since this law means pretty much what anybody reading it wants it to mean, prosecutors can use it to punish doctors or let them off, depending on whatever motivation the prosecutor might have.

I have no idea what, specifically, the medical person meant with the comment, “this is a Catholic country.” For all I know, it may be have been some sort of personal religious statement. Or, it may have meant something else.

But the law reads like Irish politicians bent too far in trying to put theology into statute. Theology is, by its nature, vague and hypothetical. Law must be, by it’s nature, definite and immediately applicable to real-world situations.

I have looked at the Catholic Church’s teachings on this and come to the conclusion that I can not write a law that incorporates Catholic teaching directly into the statute. A law which allows abortion to save the life of the mother has to say just that. I am perfectly willing to stand on that opinion in the face of what comes.

If someone wants to argue with me about it, my answer has been and will continue to be the same. Give me the language. If you can come up with the language, I’ll support it. But I can’t figure out how to write a law any other way than with direct and clear language that has universally understood meaning.

I am a determined advocate for the Church’s right to be the Church without government interference. But I also believe that laws are not theology and, while theology can and should inform good law, the two do not mix in a direct way.

What I mean by that is that I don’t plan to copy the Catechism directly into the statutes and I will not vote for bills that attempt to do so. A law that says “Thou shalt not kill” is a vague, unenforceable statute. Murder is a legal term with definitions, penalties and clear-cut understanding both by the courts and by law enforcement. My opinion that murder should be a crime punishable by law is clearly informed by “Thou shalt not kill,” but you won’t see me putting those words into statute.

We can not write statutes concerning abortion any less carefully than we write any other statute. There is no place in law for statements of intent that are not followed by clear-cut statutory language afterwards. I thought at first that since this is the Irish Constitution there might be statutory language out there amplifying it. There may be such language, but I couldn’t find it. All I found was case law.

I’m going to close down this little discussion of the legal situation that I think led to the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar with a strong caveat. I went through what was available to me concerning Irish law on abortion. I also had expert help in my search. But Ireland is another country and I am not familiar with how they do things. What I’m trying to say is, I may be wrong. There may be better laws out there in Ireland that I didn’t find. If I am wrong, just tell me, and I’ll re-write this.

However, I do feel that this tragic death is a problem with Irish law in some way. Bad laws kill people. Writing a good law can take courage. I am overstepping and I know it when I say this, but I think Irish politicians need to re-think their laws concerning abortion. I am not advocating that they legalize abortion. Rather, I think they should write their laws in such a way that it’s possible for people to understand and follow them.

Irish Bishops Issue Statement About Death of Savita Halappanavar

The Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference has released a statement concerning the death of Savita Halappanavar.

The statement, without edits or comments, is below.

The death of Mrs. Savita Halappanavar and her unborn child in University Hospital Galway on the 28 October last was a devastating personal tragedy for her husband and family. It has stunned our country. We share the anguish and sorrow expressed by so many at the tragic loss of a mother and her baby in these circumstances and we express our sympathy to the family of Mrs. Halappanavar and all those affected by these events.

In light of the widespread discussion following the tragic death of Mrs Halappanavar and her unborn baby, we wish to reaffirm some aspects of Catholic moral teaching. These were set out in our recently published Day for Life message on 7 October last, available on www.chooselife2012.ie.

- The Catholic Church has never taught that the life of a child in the womb should be preferred to that of a mother. By virtue of their common humanity, a mother and her unborn baby are both sacred with an equal right to life.

- Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

- Whereas abortion is the direct and intentional destruction of an unborn baby and is gravely immoral in all circumstances, this is different from medical treatments which do not directly and intentionally seek to end the life of the unborn baby. Current law and medical guidelines in Ireland allow nurses and doctors in Irish hospitals to apply this vital distinction in practice while upholding the equal right to life of both a mother and her unborn baby.

- Some would claim that the unborn baby is less human or less deserving of life. Advances in genetics and technology make it clear that at fertilization a new, unique and genetically complete human being comes into existence. From that moment onwards each of us did not grow and develop into a human being, but grew and developed as a human being.

With many other religious and ethical traditions we believe in upholding the equal and inalienable right to life of a mother and her unborn child in our laws and medical practice. This helps to ensure that women and babies receive the highest standard of care and protection during pregnancy.

Indeed, international statistics confirm that Ireland, without abortion, remains one of the safest countries in the world in which to be pregnant and to give birth. This is a position that should continue to be cherished and strengthened in the interests of mothers and unborn children in Ireland.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X