There is no such thing as an “abortion survivor” (02/25/2019)
By: Mr. Frost
As usual, the pro-female slavery crowd attempts to play to emotions, not facts.
There is no such thing as an “abortion survivor”
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The US Senate is set to vote on a bill to protect “ abortion survivors ” today (Feb. 25.)
The bill, introduced by Nebraska senator Ben Sasse, a Republican, would “ prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”
In other words, the bill peddles the false narrative that abortions happening later in pregnancies could result in live babies left to die by physicians who fail to provide care that would otherwise keep them alive and healthy. This is not a practice that exists, yet the bill seeks to criminalize it.
The measure is misleading in other ways. An abortion is performed with the intention of ending a pregnancy, so there are no survivors. What the bill’s sponsors seem to be targeting are the rare situations in which a woman decides to have abortion at the later stages in her pregnancy because it can’t proceed healthily for her, the fetus, or both.
Why do the lawmakers talk of survivors?
The Sasse bill would only apply to a sliver of abortions that happen late in pregnancy—which are already a small fraction of all abortions.
The usual procedure for these type of abortions is “dilation and evacuation”—similar to an aspiration abortion, except the birth canal needs to be dilated since the fetus is larger. The fetus dies before it leaves the birth canal. But in some cases, in very advanced stages of pregnancy, women have so-called induction abortion, which is similar to labor. It is done rarely because it’s a riskier procedure, and it can lead to the fetus leaving the body alive, albeit in a terminal state.
The practice at this point is to give the baby hospice care, though Sasse’s bill would require doctors to medically intervene, potentially prolonging the suffering of both mother and child, and disregarding the painful decision that the woman had to make beforehand.
How common are later-term abortions?
The percentage of women seeking abortions at this stage in their pregnancy is very small— likely well below 1% —and in 43 states the procedure is legal only in case of grave health concern for the mother, rape, or incest. Even where elective later-term abortions are allowed, they are not easily available. Only a handful of doctors in America perform the procedure, which women overwhelmingly seek because of some serious fetal issue was overlooked in previous testing, or due to severe psychiatric issues on the mother’s part.
In the few states that allow abortions after viability, a woman might decide to end her pregnancy after the doctor has told her that her fetus has very serious conditions that are either incompatible with life or would condemn it to a painful, and often short, life. It is a typically a heartbreaking, traumatic experience, and often a tragic choice for wanted pregnancies that are no longer viable.
Rather than having a stillbirth, going through with a hopeless pregnancy, or delivering a babies with terrible abnormalities , women have the choice to have an abortion. Were it to pass, Sasse’s bill would deny women the choice of sparing themselves and their babies from extra trauma and pain, because it would either force doctors to provide care that would prolong the suffering, or potentially even dissuade them for performing the procedure for fear of prosecution.
Tags
Who is online
158 visitors
If you don't like abortions, don't get one. Seems pretty simple to me.
It never ceases to amaze me that pro-lifers almost never line up to adopt 10 or 20 kids, and they always vote against welfare. They are pro-birth, not pro-life. They just don't want women making decisions for themselves, that's what it really boils down to.
I tend to think so too. But apparently for some, it's too complicated. They seem to want no choice at all, which really simplifies the issue.
Exactly.
And some act all sanctimonious about it too.
Is there supposed to be a point? Or is copy & pasting nonsense all you have to offer?
portion of an article about an abortion survivor off topic to a a topic denying that there are abortion survivors?
Because irrational zealots don't like their make believe world view challenged.
I know what it said. All it pointed out was someone's claim. I have yet to see anything to collaborate the story.
Oh the irony of that statement.
Make believe? As in you guys believing that there are such things as abortion survivors?
Such an irrational statement. More irony.
Which is not collaborated and quite suspect too!
Why are you asking me? I'm not the author or seeder of this article.
You posted a link to an article that is already here on NT. If you want to post on that article, do so, it's not the same article as this one. Last warning.
Wrong.
Having more kids than you can afford leads to generations of poverty, it is a repeating cycle
And yet, some anti-choicers want women to continue to have kids regardless if they are impoverished or not by taking away their choice. It's quite short sighted.
Heading for bed, play nice please.
it might be better to lock a wedge issue seed than to create the impression it will be temporarily without moderation to the local anti-choice vermin.
True, guess I have a lingering hope that people will try to have a civil discussion on wedge issues.