By Dave Andrusko
You could almost feel the surge of exhilaration in the story that ran in the Washington Post under the headline, “Zika prompts urgent debate about abortion in Latin America.”
There you have it. All those stubborn Latin American countries with their antiquated (protective) abortion laws now in the cross-hairs of the international abortion industry, thanks to the Zika virus outbreak.
We’ve posted four stories, and will post many others in the days and weeks to come. Remember what the bottom line is for pro-abortionists: the possible link between the virus and an increase in reports of babies born with microcephaly is a golden opportunity.
To quote Chicago mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
One of the very first examples I read of someone following Emanuel’s advice was a piece running in Newsweek written by Zoe Schlanger: “ZIKA COULD CHANGE THE ABORTION CONVERSATION IN LATIN AMERICA.
Others have wondered whether Zika could become for Latin America what a rubella scare was for the United States in the 1960s. … [W]omen who contracted the disease began giving birth to permanently disabled babies. That began to change the conversation about abortion. Life magazine ran a cover story in 1965 focusing on white, middle-class women who were choosing to terminate pregnancies after contracting rubella and on their doctors who agreed to perform the procedures, noting the severe and lifelong health complications a baby born in that condition would face. It was presented as a sober decision and an obvious choice, backed by “reputable” and “brave” doctors.
Many critics of the rush to judgment (which is to abort, abort, abort children who might be born with a smaller head)make a point of clarifying what we do–and particularly don’t–know.
For example, Thomas D. Williams observes, “Though the Brazil Ministry of Health has registered an unusually high number of babies born with microcephaly, 96% of these cases occurred without the mothers having been infected with the Zika virus at all, which means that the cause must be sought elsewhere.”
Dr. Williams quotes extensively from the Washington Post article, written by Dom Phillips, Nick Miroff, and Julia Symmes. For instance:
“Brazilian activists want women who have been diagnosed with Zika to be able to terminate a pregnancy on that basis alone,” the Post notes. Yet the article also concedes that in Colombia, “3,100 pregnant women in the country have tested positive for Zika,” yet not one case of “Zika-related microcephaly” has been found.
I’m not a doctor and don’t pretend to understand all the medical intricacies. What is fascinating, as Williams keenly observes, is that “Zika has been around for decades, yet up to now has never been found to correlate to birth defects in children. Its effects are so mild and short-lived that 4 out of 5 people infected with the virus do not even realize they are sick. Symptoms include low-grade fever, maybe a rash, possible conjunctivitis (pink eye), and some joint pain.”
Yet, in the absence of a clear connection between the Zika virus and microcephaly, abortion advocates are already ginning up the hysteria. Williams writes
Joining in spreading hysteria over [the] “possible” effect of Zika to unborn babies, the Post says that a growing concern among pediatricians is that Zika could inflict harm to developing brain tissue in other, less obvious ways than microcephaly.
“That condition could be the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of a series of neurological problems, some of which might not show up in the brain scans used to spot microcephaly,” the Post says, despite the fact that there is no scientific proof of such a connection, which is pure speculation.
Remember the tried-and-true villain for pro-abortionists: the Catholic Church. Phillips, Miroff, and Symmes begin their story in the Washington Post with
Across Latin America, calls to loosen some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world in the face of the Zika virus outbreak are gaining momentum but encountering strong and entrenched opposition.
Who is that “entrenched opposition”? We learn that in the third paragraph:
In Colombia, an organized movement to lift restrictions on abortion has gained allies in the government but has run into determined opposition from religious authorities.
We will end this post by quoting Dr. Williams’ conclusion:
The fact that established ties between Zika and microcephaly are circumstantial at this point has not deterred abortion activists like Planned Parenthood from stirring up panic among pregnant women and exploiting the situation to push for relaxing abortion legislation in Latin American countries where it is restricted.
Instead of promoting research into remedies to treat or counteract the virus, the abortion industry has shamelessly played into people’s worst fears to push for abortion-on-demand in countries like El Salvador that currently restrict or prohibit abortion.