By Dave Andrusko
Starting with me, pro-lifers are not hesitant to heavily criticize reporters when they write incomplete, not to mention misleading, stories. So when Rick Ruggles of the Omaha World Herald provides readers with a thorough, informative story with no spin in any direction, we ought to tip our hats.
Reporters don’t ordinarily write headlines, and while certainly accurate, “Nonsurgical abortions increasing” doesn’t do justice to the breadth and comprehensiveness of the story, which ran today. (See www.omaha.com/article/20110606/LIVEWELL16/706069946/1161)
Ruggles weaves together many of the intertwining threads that make up the web that is “nonsurgical”—RU486/chemical—abortions. Let me quickly list them. Together it will illustrate why banning ‘web-cam abortions’ is so vital.
· The number of chemical abortions has swollen even as the overall number of abortions has stabilized. “The Guttmacher Institute said medication abortions increased nationwide from 70,500 in 2001 to 199,000 in 2008.” (“Medication abortions” is the abortion industry’s preferred term.)
· Guttmacher says from 1992 to 2008 there’s been a 25% decrease in “abortion providers.” By contrast, “The number of providers who dispense the pills has increased from about 600 in 2001 to 1,066 in 2008.” (Guttmacher, by the way, started out as a research affiliate for Planned Parenthood.)
· “But Rachel Jones, a researcher at Guttmacher, said the number has leveled off, and many physicians are reluctant to offer the pills because they don’t want to be harassed.” This is all blue smoke and mirrors. If there’s a “leveling off,” it would be because (a) doctors are having second thoughts about joining the ranks of abortionists, even they are “only” dispensing RU486; and (b) the public is gradually becoming aware that chemical abortions are expanding.
· The key player in marrying chemical abortions to the web-cam is Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, which continues to gobble up abortion clinics in Iowa and Nebraska while building new and/or larger abortion facilities. Three years ago it “devised a method of providing those pills remotely by computer, without a doctor present,” Ruggles writes. “The videoconference strategy made it somewhat easier for women in rural areas to obtain the pills.”
This, of course, is the understatement of the year. Jill June, executive director of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, was more candid. “It provided a great, affordable and accessible means for women to get the care they needed and wanted,” she said. And June is referring to “under-served” women in rural areas.
What does it all mean? I turned to Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, NRLC Director of Education & Research and an expert on the subject.
“This clearly shows that the aim of the abortion industry isn’t making abortion safer or even giving a woman more ‘options,’ but expanding abortion in the United States, expanding the customer base with false promises of easier, safer, simpler abortions,” he said. “Chemical abortions are none of those things, but if the fairy tale gets the women in the door, the clinic can give her the sales pitch and sell her the abortion.”
O’Bannon concluded, “While by no means is this abortion ‘safer,’ if they can keep from having to hire an abortionist and just do it over a web cam, it does mean more profits for the clinic.”