By Dave Andrusko
When Vicki Saporta, head of the National Abortion Federation (a trade association for abortion clinics), says, “The anti-choice folks have gotten smarter,” you can pretty much assume that is NOT meant as a compliment. Sure enough, in the next sentences of Michelle Goldberg’s “The Triumph of Bureaucracy Over Abortion Rights,” Saporta adds, “They’re no longer talking about overturning Roe, because there would be a huge backlash. But if you make abortion inaccessible in state after state, they are in fact achieving their goal while seeming reasonable, when they’re anything but.”
These thoughts conclude Goldberg’s piece and aptly summarizes Goldberg’s argument. Nothing we’ve done can be taken at face value, let alone be taken as reasonable. It’s all part of a MASTER PLAN.
Let’s think about this for a bit.
Do pro-lifers desire an end to what we believe is the wholesale slaughter of unborn children? Well, yes.
Do pro-abortionists want a single limitation placed on the elimination of these same children—no matter how close to delivery the child is and no matter how frivolous the reason her life is extinguished? Well, no.
(They get around the abhorrence a large majority of Americans feel for “late” abortions by leaving the impression that most, if not virtually all, are because the mother’s life is at stake or the baby will be born dying. That this is not even remotely true is simply the price pro-abortionists gladly pay to keep the public befuddled and abortion on demand legal.)
The gist of Goldberg’s argument is that “red tape” is ensnarling “abortion rights,” the implication obviously that pro-life laws have no object other than to throw sand in the gears of the abortion machine (which is not a bad idea, by the way).
But there are other critically important objectives, short-and medium-term: educating pregnant women often in crisis situations; educating the public to what abortion REALLY does and to WHOM; and saving women from the tender mercies of the likes of Kermit Gosnell.
Goldberg, you could have known prior to reading her piece, would never mention one of the most important recommendations from the Philadelphia Grand Jury whose investigation led to the trial of Gosnell and his conviction on three counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter: that abortion clinics should be licensed as ambulatory surgical facilities (ASFs). On pages 248-249 you read
“Under the plain language of the Health Care Facilities Act, abortion clinics should be regulated, licensed, and monitored as Ambulatory Surgical Facilities. Had the state Department of Health not inexplicably declined to classify abortion clinics as ASFs, Gosnell’s clinic would have been subject to yearly inspection and licensing.
“The department’s inspectors could have inspected at any time, announced or unannounced, to investigate any complaints. The sight of unlicensed employees sedating patients in Gosnell’s absence would presumably have triggered action. Given the clinic’s filthy conditions, it surely would have been shut down long ago if DOH had merely taken a look.”
I don’t know how old Ms. Goldberg is, but when I asked a couple of veteran pro-life lobbyists for their take, the conclusion was (as one wrote) that efforts have been made from the very earliest days to regulate abortion clinics because “Pro-lifers have been worried about the safety of abortion since even before Roe.”
Think about what the Supreme Court struck down including bans on saline abortion which were hideously painful to the very mature unborn child and very dangerous to the mother. The “technique” is, to my knowledge, rarely used any more. Likewise reporting abortion complications to state health officials which (you would think) anyone would agree to.
We fought tooth and nail to pass parental notice/consent laws. Pro-abortionists hate them. They want an uninterrupted path, from initial “consultation” with some panic-stricken teenager, to an appointment at her friendly Planned Parenthood clinic, to annihilating the unborn child. Parental involvement? How gauche.
Requiring pregnant women to have the opportunity to see whom it is whose life they are about to end? Nothing but harassment.
Requiring fly-in abortionists to have admitting privileges in a local hospital? You must be kidding!
All of this is built around one of the foundational myths of the Abortion Establishment: abortion (for the mother) is ridiculously safe.
That (a) this is not true, as we have written about many times in NRL News Today, and (b) ignores longer-term after-effects (premature births, sterility, various emotional difficulties) is not important enough for the media to investigate but very important for PPFA to hide.
Final thought about Goldberg. She bemoans legislative attempts to ensure that abortionists are at least in the same room as the women they are dispensing powerful chemical abortifacients to! Don’t need to be there. RU-486 abortions are safe, safe, safe. Never mind the 14 women who’ve died after taking the two-drug combination or the thousands of women who have had “adverse consequences.”
But, to Goldberg, “Again, the details [like deaths and adverse consequences?] are technical.”
PPFA and its ilk eagerly embraced chemical abortions not because clinics were “forced to shut their doors,” but because fewer young doctors embraced abortion and because the abortion industry could make money hand over fist.
Think about it. Nurses or nurse practitioners or physician assistants can be spread out all over a state or states. One abortionist, operating from a central location, can use videoconferencing technology to abort a ton of women—especially women in rural areas.
More (many more) “customers,” lower (much lower) overhead=a financial bonanza for PPFA a “non-profit” that already takes in over $1 billion each year.
Sorry, Ms. Goldberg, portraying abortionists as having hearts of gold, is a very hard sell.