By Dave Andrusko
When your underlying premise is that there can NEVER be enough abortions, sometimes that comes out even when you deny believing it, if confronted. Let’s take “For Abortion Pills, You Must ‘See’ Your Doctor,” by Esme E. Deprez.
Ms. Deprez is attempting to illustrate the awfulness of laws that require abortionists to actually be on site to give the woman the prescription for a chemical [read RU486] abortion. Her first paragraph details how one Texas abortion clinic in Austin formerly could prescribe abortifacients via videoconferencing [“webcam abortions’].
Less time, less travel, less expense, she writes: “Remote visits allowed the clinic to offer abortions six days a week.” There in twelve words is the sum and substance of the “case” for so-called webcam abortions.
You can be busy destroying unborn babies six days a week because, heck, in the unlikely case you don’t have enough “patients” locally, you can reach out all over the state. Those “underserved” rural areas [the ones with no home-grown abortionist or too far out of the way to have one fly in or whose “volume” is too low] can have abortion rates as high as a college town like Austin. What a deal!
As they always do, proponents of webcam abortions want to describe abortions as just another “medical service” that ought to viewed—and distributed—no differently than any other. Thus the very last lines: “The bottom line: In the U.S., 10 million people in underserved areas see doctors via telemedicine.[Pro-Life] Activists want to restrict its use for abortion service.”
So, to the abortion industry, webcam abortions are a subset of telemedicine and if you no objections to using telemedicine for legitimate medicine, you ought not to be bothered by having it employed to kill the unborn.
One other point in Deprez’s story, which is typical. Pro-lifers patiently point out that RU486 abortions not only kill unborn babies they are dangerous for women. According to an FDA document released in 2011, there have been at least 19 women who died after attempting to abort with RU-486, at least 2,200 suffering significant enough “adverse events” to be reported, and at least 612 women requiring hospitalization.
Most proponents simply ignore this. They prefer to argue that the complications rate is essentially the same whether the abortionist “prescribed abortion drugs in person” or women “were given the treatment after a teleconference,” to quote Deprez.
They go further to cite a study published in The American Journal of Public Health which looked at “Changes in Service Delivery Patterns After Introduction of Telemedicine Provision of Medical Abortion in Iowa.” For the moment ignore that the usual pro-abortionists were in charge of the study. The study concluded, “Recent legislation to ban telemedicine abortion may adversely affect public health by preventing women from accessing abortion earlier in pregnancy, when it is safer.”
However as Jacqueline Harvey, Ph.D., explained, the study is inadequate on multiple fronts. In a nutshell, “The authors failed to note the increased risk of medical [RU486] abortions over surgical abortions and how the increased prevalence of medical abortions will likely yield an 11% increase in the number of women suffering from complications.” [See http://nrlc.cc/Xen36l]
The fight to insure that at a minimum the abortionist actually gives the mother the prescription for the chemical abortion ingredients has been intense and will get even hotter. You take a chunk out of at the abortionist’s pocketbook and they will fight back…hard.
Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.