Congressional Budget Office: 30 Late-Term Abortions Each Day

Congressional Budget Office: 30 Late-Term Abortions Each Day July 9, 2013

According to the Congressional Budget Office, doctors in the United States perform at least 30 late-term abortions each day.

The CBO analysisof HR 1797, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act said in part:

“Based on data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CBO estimates that, each year, about 11,000 abortions take place 20 weeks or more after fertilization.”

Any honest person who has dealt with this issue can tell you that this number is bound to be on the low side. Many doctors do not report late-term abortions. One reason for this is that pro choice people fight any attempt to require reporting with wildly erroneous claims that reporting would put undue hardship on doctors and endanger “women’s health,” as well as “turn back the clock” and “send women to the back alleys again.” They usually manage to work rape and incest victims into this somewhere as well.

This is standard boiler plate stuff that they trot out during any and every discussion of pro life legislation. The incredible thing is that, no matter how many times they do it, or how completely inapplicable it may be to the legislation in question, their true believers always buy it.

So, reporting of late-term abortions is, like every other sort of needed regulation, sparse, inconsistent and compromised by expensive court cases and constant hysterics from the pro abortion lobby.

Despite this, the CDC was able to document that American doctors kill at least 11,000 babies every year whose mothers are in the 5th month or later in their pregnancies. I’ve written before about the simple fact that late-term abortion is never medically necessary. A late-term abortion inevitably puts the woman through a labor and delivery anyway. So, if there is a medical reason to stop the pregnancy to save the mother’s life, doctors should just deliver the baby and try to save both their patients.

Doctors who do late-term abortions have to very carefully kill the baby by shooting poison into its heart before before they do the procedure. If they don’t, there’s a good chance that the baby will survive the abortion and become a problem. I’m no doctor, but that sure sounds like they are aborting babies that are at least potentially viable by any definition of the word except the hatched-up political science fiction of pro abortion Supreme Court decisions.

All the arguments about the woman having a right to her own body fall apart when we consider late-term abortion. If the baby can survive the birth, then the child’s body becomes the issue, not its mother’s.

We commit at least 11,000 of these killings every year in this country. I am against the death penalty. I have the votes and the scars to prove it. But think for a minute about the outcry if we were doing 11,000 executions each year. There would — and there should — be widespread condemnation and claims of barbarism.

The Congressional Budget Office included this paragraph in their report:

“HR 1790 would result in increased spending for Medicaid. Since a portion of Medicaid is paid for by state governments, CBO estimates that state spending on the program would increase by about $170 million over the 2014-2023 period.”

I’m not going to go off on this because I realize that it’s the job of the CBO to provide this kind of cost analysis on all pieces of legislation. They are not saying, as some people will claim, that the CBO feels this money is more important than the lives of babies. They are simply supplying the information.

The people who make the decision about what is important concerning this legislation are the duly elected members of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, together with the President of the United States. They are free to either disregard this financial analysis or base their entire vote on it. That is their choice.

I will say that $170 million is not very much money over a 9-year span in Medicaid funding. At 11,000 babies killed every year of that time period, we would have 99,000 dead children. That’s almost twice the number of soldiers we lost in Viet Nam. What the report is actually telling us is that the cost is minuscule, while the number of lives lost is huge.

One thing we need to decide as a people is do we want to continue this practice of killing viable babies? I would think that even people who favor legal abortion should be ready to re-consider late-term abortions by now.

It amazes me how angry and indignant people become when they see a photo of a baby murdered in an abortion. You’d think the photos, and not the killing itself, was the problem. I think the reason for all this outrage at the sight of photos is simple: They tell a truth that people don’t want to know.

It would be better by far if we stopped those photos by stopping the killing that they record. Think how simple that would be: No more late-term abortions = No more disturbing photos of murdered late-term babies.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

35 responses to “Congressional Budget Office: 30 Late-Term Abortions Each Day”

  1. To be honest, I don’t think very much of a woman who would be so clueless as to wait so long before having an abortion. She should know enough to have it right away or not have it all. I realize that one’s circumstances can change thereby requiring a late abortion. But that should be the exception not the rule. Having said that, I do not agree with legislation that would take away one of her options.

  2. Anyone who reads here knows that I’m pro-choice, which is not in a stand called pro- abortion. Choice is just that—choice. However, I draw the line at 12 weeks/3 months limit on a termination. If a woman can’t make up her mind in that time—carry and deliver. I would have no problem with a limit of 12 weeks—–late term is not necessary ( I expect there are some rare exceptions—but it should be a delivery as best as possible and the fetus helped to live).

  3. I can understand why a woman would choose abortion before 12 weeks. It’s difficult to understand after that. If it is an issue with saving the mom, they should try to save the baby too. I suspect that many late term abortions come about because of medical technology advances. You find out your baby will be disabled often while the baby is in the womb.

    The pictures are awful and definitely should be shown appropriately. I am not in favor of people aggressively handing me and/or my kids these photos when we are innocently walking down the street.

  4. Since circumstances can always change, and you would never agree to legislation taking away any one of a woman’s options, I assume that you would be in favor of allowing infanticide–in rare cases of course, when one’s circumstances would require killing one’s newborn, perhaps if the woman loses her job or some such?

  5. Bill, in a summary of abortion statistics, the Guttmacher Insitute indicates that when abortions are delayed it is typically because of difficulties raising money and making associated arrangements. The Guttmacher Insitute also mentions that a teenager (compared to older women) is more likely to be receiving abortions at 15 weeks or later. Those two bits of information are probably not unrelated. I think an additional explanation would be simple procrastination: putting off making an unpleasant action. Again, teenagers would be more vulnerable to this.

    The Guttmacher Institue also mentions that medical risks are much higher for abortions which occur at or later than 15 weeks. For that reason alone, it is a good idea to limit late term abortions.

  6. As Rebecca noted, the CDC numbers are probably low. In a 2011 article the CDC even admits this, noting that its data depends on voluntary reports from providers and state agencies. It also notes that the Guttmacher Institute, which is more aggressive about collecting data, puts the number of abortions during the same period about 50% higher.

    How many abortions could be prevented by banning the procedure at 20 weeks and later is an open question. The Congressional Budge Office, in the document Rebecca cited, admits there is no way to tell how many of those pregnancies would receive an abortion at earlier point in gestation, or how many of those pregnancies would proceed to birth. But surely there would be less late term abortions.

  7. No. I would be against infanticide. If push came to shove, I guess I would be less inclined to defend a woman’s right to a late term abortion than an early one. People need deadlines to stop putting off painful decisions, as Dale makes reference to below. A 20-week limit does not seem to be unreasonable seeing that the infant would survive on its own by then. Even earlier than that as others have suggested.

  8. I agree. A deadline is needed. I hate to use the expression: “drop-dead date” but it would be a time when it is too late to abort the pregnancy. Good points about the teenagers putting it off.

  9. It really hurts me to read this and see those pictures. To tell you the truth, I’m a little torn about stopping only late term abortions. Of course I’ll take it, but what worries me is that the emphasis to stop all abortions will die away. We will be abandoning all those abortions of prior than 20 weeks. All abortions need to be stopped. But we have to take what we can get, otherwise more late termers will be murdered.

  10. I was thinking about this last night. I want to clarify that I wasn’t saying that having a late term abortion because you find out your child will be disabled is okay with me.

  11. Manny, I have to make decisions like this all the time. My rule: I will save every life I can, any time I can, no matter the consequence to me.

    I save every life I can, whether or not the opportunity I am offered to saves lives is imperfect. (It always is imperfect.)

    If we can stop late-term abortions, we will save lives.

  12. We do, but Manny makes an important point. We don’t want to paint ourselves into a corner by bargaining away our focus that life begins at conception. Anything else is a relative marker that can be moved anywhere along the gestation spectrum by argument or medical protocol.

    I think we put ourselves at particular risk with the pain-capable arguments. The minute the abortionists come up with a protocol to anesthetize the baby, the whole restriction gets thrown out and we may never get another chance to make the argument for life at conception. Those who signed on to the pain-capable restriction will be labeled hypocrites if they argue for any further ban.

  13. But why is it ever too late? What is your criteria for “too late” that doesn’t apply equally as well to any prior time point?

    As far as your comment below about survival “on it’s own” after 20 weeks, the baby is not capable of survival on it’s own. It will require the very best that intensive neonatal care can provide to even have the smallest of chances. In fact, one could say that a child is probably not capable of survival on it’s own until it’s about 4 or 5. So, why not
    infanticide if some kind of survival capability is your criteria?

    This is the problem of moral relativism. Every point is just a scaleable marker that can be shifted by argument, and who’s to say your argument is better than anyone else’s? In truth, relativism ultimately leads to anarchy as each person rejects anyone else’s authority to define their personal limits.

  14. Manny and Oregon Catholic, the pro abortion people will always come up with another argument against any issue we raise or point we make. We are also always called hypocrites and that is not going to cease.

    It doesn’t matter what they say, so stop worrying about it.

    All that matters so far as our actions is what we decide to do. Other’s people’s opinions don’t enter into it. We decide what our actions will be and on what we will base them. No one else.

  15. I look at it differently. If a law was passed to end late-term abortions, then you move on to early term abortions.

  16. Sorry, I don’t agree. Opinions matter and language matters and they effect public discourse and the laws of the land. One of the most effective defenses against the many arguments of pro-aborts is a solid, unchanging position of the truth about abortion – it kills a human life at any stage.

    Anytime we support something that is not in line with truth, the truth we try to tell suffers. When we support a bill that says it’s OK for babies from 0-19 weeks to be aborted, even for the good of protecting those 20 weeks and over, we have weakened the truth that life begins at conception – we have cooperated with placing a value judgment about life at one stage vs another, the proverbial slippery slope. I don’t doubt your sincerity for a moment and you may believe that is your best option as a politician but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to agree.

  17. The premise on which you are basing your argument is inaccurate. The bill does NOT say that it is ok to abort babies from 0-19 weeks. It is silent on this issue.

    You are making this inference, but it is not in the language of the bill.

    You are free to have any opinion you want and to act on it accordingly. I will save every life I can, when I can.

    However, I would caution you against waiting for a perfect solution to every problem in life before you act. The same is true of allowing yourself to be paralyzed into inaction because someone out there will criticize it or disagree with it. You will ultimately end up doing nothing.

  18. I think my meaning about it being OK to abort is perfectly clear. The bill is a legal issue, not a moral one, and if 0-19 weeks is not made illegal it is, by default, still legally ‘OK’.

  19. That is the law now. Making abortions after 20 weeks illegal would narrow legal abortion, not widen it. I think you may be describing your emotional reaction to the pragmatic realities. I know you are not talking about the law.

  20. And I think you may be indirectly supporting an evil for the purpose of directly supporting what you feel is a greater good. That’s your right and it’s certainly pragmatic, for now, I just happen to see it as a slippery slope cooperation and those sometimes come back to haunt in ways far worse than standing on truth alone. Bills like this may have the result of hindering the defining that life begins at conception and ultimately protecting abortion. You may have chosen to win a battle at the cost of losing the war. Don’t assume there will be more battles to win because I think these compromises to ban after 20 weeks may have effectively shut down the momentum we have been gaining of late.

  21. I don’t believe it’s politically possible to outlaw abortion right now. Until the issues of why women resort to abortion are addressed then abortion will continue. I’m sure there’s a percentage of “selfish” women that have them, but I think there are women who feel like they have no choice due to their circumstances. Those women can be reached.

    I think outlawing late term abortions is a good start but only a start. There is much more that needs to happen.

  22. 1. If it’s a cooperation, the pro abortion people are certainly unaware of it.
    2. “Standing on truth alone” does not mean that we fail to save lives when we can. Quite the contrary. Just because every person on the Titanic was fully human, that did not mean that the Captain should have refused to lower the lifeboats, even though there were not enough lifeboats for everyone. Even though Schindler could not save all 6 million Jews, he was still right to save those he could. These actions did not mean that the Captain was in favor of sinking the ship or that Schindler supported the Holocaust.
    3. Supporting one piece of legislation is not a legal contract that you will forgo supporting others or cease in your efforts to affect a more complete change. Many things in life — in fact most things — are achieved through constant effort that affects gradual change. You seem to be saying that anything less than a 180 degree hard about on the total issue of abortion is cooperation with evil. This goes against things which the popes have written on this very subject.
    4. Indirectly supporting an evil such as abortion would be more like driving your friend to the abortion clinic or telling someone that it is “their choice,” or voting for a known pro abortion political candidate because you support their stands on other issues.
    5. Indirect supporting of an evil such as abortion is most certainly NOT supporting a change in the law that narrows abortion. In fact, I would consider myself supporting abortion — directly, not indirectly — if I didn’t back legislation like this.

  23. I just re-read this series of comments and I want to apologize for being so short with you Oregon Catholic. I know you are speaking from a deep concern for unborn babies. Good people sometimes disagree on tactics. But they are still good people. Apologies.

  24. Religious liberty and conscience exceptions are important. What we absolutely should not do is write a law in which an emergency room surgeon is prevented from saving the life of the baby when the mother isn’t viable, or vice versa.

    I say that as a supporter of personhood laws. It is the one thing the pro-choicers always leave out, don’t make the same mistake.

  25. Yes, of course I agree with that. But political history suggests (at least to me but perhaps Rebecca can verify) that once some portion of an issue is addressed and seen as reached a comprimise, the rest of the issue dies away. The energy goes out of the people pushing and the rest of the public sees the issue behind us. I think that’s what will happen. At least for a generation if not longer.

  26. The reasons women resort to abortion have always existed since time immemorial. They will always exist. Abortions were never a real option for most women until this past 100 years. What’s different now is the availability. The reasons will never go away.

  27. I said this above to Sus, but I’d like you to see it too Oregon:

    “But political history suggests (at least to me but perhaps Rebecca can verify) that once some portion of an issue is addressed and seen as reached a comprimise, the rest of the issue dies away. The energy goes out of the people pushing and the rest of the public sees the issue behind us. I think that’s what will happen. At least for a generation if not longer.”
    I’m pretty sure that’s what will happen, but I couldn’t bear having late termers die just so we could keep this issue alive. Then I’m afraid I would have blood on my hands too. It’s a terrible pickle we’re in.

  28. I could be wrong, but the way I see it is we need to do our best to uphold the whole truth (life begins at conception) and leave the outcome in God’s hands. I think anything else is compromising with evil and evil will always turn on us.

    As I said below, I too believe the compromises will effectively shut down further reform and we will have settled for something less than we could have accomplished. I also think it will be short-lived as I fully expect an anesthesia protocol will be implemented to get around the pain issue. We’ll be back where we started with the same number of late-term abortions only having diminished the ability to talk about the truth.

  29. See. This is why you can’t let the pro-lifers gain a foothold. As soon as you show that you are willing to make concessions they want you to go all the way. Better to nip it in the bud and fight any restrictions. You give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

  30. Yes. I agree too. But you can’t take the decision away from the prospective parents. If they want to raise a handicapped child, fine. But if they don’t they shouldn’t be prevented from terminating the pregnancy. No one has that right.

  31. Just because the reasons have always been here, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to help the situation. There are many women that choose abortion because it’s easier to get forgiveness from God than it is to get forgiveness from their congregation for their bad decisions.