Another Planned Parenthood press release dressed up as a news story
By Dave Andrusko
You’d never know it by the headline in USA Today—“New abortion restrictions take a digital turn”—but the story is actually about webcam abortions. Before dissecting Kimberly Railey’s oddly-written story, you need some background.
Why has NRL News Today written dozens and dozens and dozens of stories about so-called “web-cam” abortion? They are dangerous—the mother and the abortionist never meet; he does his “counseling” via video conference and he is not there if there are complications.
And there have been complications from this powerful two-drug abortion technique (“RU-486” plus a prostaglandin to induce contractions to expel the dead baby). According to an FDA report dated April 30, 2011, in the United States alone, 14 women have died since September 2000 while another 612 were hospitalized. As NRLC’s Director of Education Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon has warned repeatedly, there were also 339 cases in which blood loss was serious enough to require transfusions, according to the FDA.
For the abortionist webcam/videoconferencing abortions are the equivalent of a magic carpet. Instead of driving or flying hundreds of miles to see a pregnant woman, he dials her up and after a perfunctory counseling, electronically opens a drawer door in the room where the pregnant woman is located and she takes out the two drugs, taking one on the spot.
Webcam abortions do not need the investment surgical abortion clinics require, thus greatly multiplying the capacity to spread the abortion plague like a virus. And because RU-486 abortions are advertised as “easier” and performed earlier, some doctors will perform them who would never lift a curette.
Railey’s story shows you how to altogether evade the truth about RU-486: Make web-cam abortions just another example of “telemedicine” (which no one objects to) by quoting someone from the virulently pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute:
“Telemedicine is spreading across the country in chronic disease and mental health care, but abortion’s the only way we’re seeing it restricted,” says Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute. “Whenever there’s an advancement in health care, an abortion restriction is never far behind.”
It’s the “only way” we are seeing telemedicine “restricted” because it’s the only example of using this technique to kill someone, rather than help them, even save their lives. Is that elementary distinction too difficult to understand or by not challenging its erroneous framing does it allow Railey to write the story essentially from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute’s perspective? (There is ONE quote from ONE pro-lifer who is given two sentences to make a comment–along with a couple of sentences paraphrasing what he had to say.)
Instead what we read is almost literally what you could download from Guttmacher’s webpage or Planned Parenthood’s.
“Safe and legal,” the use of webcam abortions in Iowa (supposedly) did not increase the abortion rate at the same time it increased access (that ought to be enough to make anyone scratch their head). Better yet we’re told its use even accounted for a “slight decline in the number of abortions being performed during the second trimester of pregnancy,” according to a study released in November by the American Journal of Public Health.
If you want to help unborn babies,
Click here to receive the latest pro-life news and commentary
But this study she’s alluding to is full of holes, as we have shown. (“Study shows that telemedicine expands abortion access in Iowa,” http://nrlc.cc/19ZDCOb). Read the entire piece for yourself, but if you don’t have time there are these two summary points.
(1) “The bottom line is that this study provides evidence that the use of telemedicine for abortion does precisely what one would expect: it increases the incidence of RU486 abortions, increases the percentage of overall abortions that use RU486, and increases the incidence of abortion among women in rural areas — which increases the overall incidence of abortion relative to what it would otherwise be.”
(2) “While methodologically sound, the study reads more like market research than a treatise on public health, especially since there was no mention of any complications. Using the most conservative numbers on incomplete abortions requiring surgical follow-up to a mere 2%, this means that of the study’s 9,758 patients, at least 195 women who could not make the trip to a see a physician in person faced this complication alone. While earlier abortions do pose less risk, the authors do not acknowledge the risks involved with unsupervised self-abortion. The authors herald tele-med abortions as increasing access to abortions for women in rural areas, but do not consider a potential danger for women who cannot be treated for complications over a webcam.”
One other point, building on the free shot given to Guttmacher Institute that we quoted earlier (“Whenever there’s an advancement in health care, an abortion restriction is never far behind”). In case anyone missed the slur, Railey adds this outrageous sentence:
“So far, no ban has targeted the wider use of telemedicine, which allows medical providers to remotely share images and videos using wireless or video technology.”
Get it? Those “anti-science” pro-lifers are at it again, a grotesque distortion brought to courtesy of the “neutral” pages of USA Today.