They forget to mention the part about it being “killing babies for a profit”, for one things (via Twitchy)
Before you judge "late-term abortion," doctors want you to really understand what it is: https://t.co/zW6skKrQyd pic.twitter.com/CfRwPwjGkD
— CNN (@CNN) February 6, 2019
From the despicable link
President Donald Trump has called on Congress “to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children.” This came after he first accused New York lawmakers of cheering for “legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth” and then said embattled Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam “would execute a baby after birth.”
With the recent passage of New York’s new Reproductive Health Act and Northam’s voiced support of a measure that would loosen restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy, the phrase “late-term abortion” has appeared in headlines, peppered conversations, fueled social media battles — and now made it into a State of the Union address. But what exactly does this language mean?
CNN spoke with two ob-gyns to explain: Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy at theAmerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a professional organization; and Dr. Jennifer Conti, a fellow with the advocacy group Physicians for Reproductive Health and co-host of The V Word podcast.
What these two doctors want you to know is that the appropriate language is “abortions later in pregnancy”, not late term abortions. And that they make up only 1.3% of abortions overall.
Likewise, when conditions progress or appear that severely compromise a woman’s health or life, abortion may be the safest, medically indicated procedure. These conditions can also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. They might include premature rupture of membranes (where the fluid surrounding the fetus is lost before labor), uterine infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption and placenta accreta. Women under these circumstances may have extensive blood loss or septic shock that can be fatal.
It’s important to note, if a woman’s health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion.
Except, that’s really not what the NY nor Virginia bills were about, nor what Virginia Gov Northam was speaking about. Nor what many of the just introduced bills are about.
This CNN article is everything wrong with media coverage of abortion. Two pro-abortion doctors are given free space to deceive the public into thinking most-late term abortions are because the child has a disability or the mother's life is in danger, when the opposite is true. https://t.co/ZsXEbwE9Tt
— Right to Life of MI (@Right_to_Life) February 6, 2019
As someone who used to self-identify as anti-choice, I can attest that the biggest misunderstanding about abortion is the framework of hypotheticals vs. reality. All pregnancies carry risks, but some much more than others, and it is the job of the patient to weigh risks and benefits in all medical decisions. Not politicians. Not journalists. Not strangers on Twitter.
Misleading hypotheticals show disregard and contempt for people who have had an abortion later in pregnancy. People who have abortions deserve empathy and understanding, not judgment.
The two pro-late term abortion doctors actually keep flipping back and forth between later term and abortion overall. Yes, there might be a situation where it does save the life of the mother, but most late terms are elective. And how many really consider deeply just having an abortion overall? The pro-aborts keep shooting down waiting periods, which are typically just 4 hours. And, if they didn’t want to be pregnant, then they shouldn’t have had irresponsible, unprotected sex with someone they didn’t want to have a baby with.
I dare you to watch this video & link it to an abortion search on your website. You won’t because you are deceitful cowards masquerading as “facts first” journalism. https://t.co/mHfOL84nTH
— Kris Kinder (@kris_kinder) February 6, 2019
Teach: but most late terms are elective
Not according to these experts, including one from ACOG, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Do you have evidence that most “late-term” abortions are based on a whim?
We understand the ultimate objective of the anti-abortionists is to limit or even ban all abortions, not just those after 6 months. The occasional focus on late-term procedures is not for medical or ethical concerns but for political advantage. Infanticide is murder and is against the law.
Expert:
Teach: Except, that’s really not what the NY nor Virginia bills were about…
How so?
Statistics on US abortion:
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
Bugs again doesn’t want us to think about how invested Lefties are in abortion.
It’s important to note, if a woman’s health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion.
I do believe Dr Kevorkian said the same thing. How many years did he get?
PS Guttmacher isn’t exactly objective. Objectionable, yes.
Not according to these experts, including one from ACOG, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Do you have evidence that most “late-term†abortions are based on a whim?
Exactly how many babies killed not on a whim do you and the ACOG believe are acceptable, 1000, 19,000, 250,000? At what point does your “whim” become genocide?
You communists are all the same: “One death is a tragedy but a million is a statistic”.
Kye: Exactly how many babies killed not on a whim do you and the ACOG believe are acceptable
It seems you object to the criteria of “not viable” or “the health of the woman”.
Would you insist that a woman die to deliver?
Would you insist that gov’t force intensive care (ventilators, heart-lung, IV nutrition) on a not viable baby, perhaps anencephalic or worse?
Would you withhold life-saving treatment for a woman because the treatment might harm the fetus? (Most chemo treatments are teratogenic but can cure many cancers)
What is your argument?
It seems you object to the criteria of “not viable†or “the health of the womanâ€.
Well, he is, after all, intelligent. Less than 1% of abortions are actually about the health of the mother (as opposed to “woman”). And the Nazis were aborting all manner of people because they were “not viable†years after birth. The Commies aborted 125 million of them.
Would you insist that gov’t force intensive care (ventilators, heart-lung, IV nutrition) on a not viable baby
It takes years before a baby is truly viable. Just ask the Spartans.
Would you withhold life-saving treatment for a woman because the treatment might harm the fetus?
Your kind usually does.
s/b doesn’t.
Not reported by CNN.
Murder then, murder now. What’s your point? To outlaw murder?
Gosnell is in prison for the rest of his life for murdering babies, and rightly so. If someone were to cut his spinal cord in prison, no one would mourn.
No law in any American state allows murder.
Do you have an argument to make or just being whignorant?
Had Gosnell operated under the “new” rules, he would still be a free man, still killing babies because “the mama said ‘okay, doc’ just stop all that screeching”.
Snip, snip…
Harvey wants to out law guns, so he refutes his own point.
And of course he would mourn if Gosnell were killed in prison. His brand of sophistry is the stock and trade of Lefty hypocrisy.
Do you have an argument to make or just being whignorant?
No, that’s your thing, Ethelreda.
PS The Whigs are your guys, not ours.
Seriously, I think that’s one of the nastiest things about left-wing ideology: it lets people rationalize their malice. (and weaponize it) They see halos over their heads as they destroy innocent people. Leftists are bad people who think of themselves as good people. It’s one of the elements that gives their thing so much energy.
CNN wants you to ignore.
https://tinyurl.com/yaqkpfr6