Standing against using Zika virus as a reason to tear down protective abortion laws

By Dave Andrusko

Ana Carolina Caceres

Ana Carolina Caceres

There is nothing–nothing wonderful, nothing tragic, and nothing in-between–that the Abortion Lobby will not attempt to exploit to further its ever-expanding death agenda.

By now we probably all know that the Zika virus is spread by a particular mosquito. Ordinarily the symptoms are relatively mild but with pregnant women it has been linked to a rise in the number of babies born with microcephaly–abnormally small heads and incomplete brain development.

The range of microcephaly, like any neurological disorder, ranges from relatively mild to severe.

Today, for only the fourth time ever, the World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern.

So what is notorious online abortion service Women On Web offering? Money to develop a vaccine? Of course not.

For women who are nine weeks pregnant or less “free abortion medication to women in the Zika virus zone.”

A story about offering chemical abortifacients that ran in the Planned Parenthood equivalent in Great Britain–Marie Claire–used that news as the jumping off point to (what else?) attack the protective abortion laws in places like Brazil, which appears to be the epicenter of the Zika virus.

The reliably pro-abortion Newsweek jumped in today with “ZIKA COULD CHANGE THE ABORTION CONVERSATION IN LATIN AMERICA,” by Zoe Schlanger. The outbreak is spreading to the Americans and “97 percent of all the women of childbearing age in Latin America and the Caribbean live in countries where abortion is either highly restricted or completely banned,” she tell us.

After the usual horror stories, Schlanger quotes a representative from the Citizen Group for the Decriminalization of Abortion: that the “Zika panic– and the resultant focus on pregnancy—will force a ‘serious, scientific debate’ about abortion laws in his country.”

Schlanger then get to her real point of her post:

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.

That rubella cover story, published eight years before Roe v. Wade, stoked public sympathy for the procedure, which translated into legal changes; By 1968, four states had passed laws that permitted abortion if fetal deformities were detected, citing rubella as a primary example.

These people have no shame.

Oddly enough, as I was driving in, I heard a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) story about the Zika virus. The BBC is relentlessly, unyielding pro-abortion. If you look on its Facebook page, there is story after story about the Zika virus and story after story about whether that ought to be a reason to revisit abortion laws.

However this particular report ended by reading a post on the BBC Facebook from a woman who has microcephaly

Ana Carolina Caceres is a college graduate, a reporter who has her own blog. She explained that doctors told her parents she would not walk or talk and would eventually be in a “vegetative state.”

But her last two sentences is her answer:

“I chose journalism to give voice to people like me who do not feel represented. I can say that today I am a fulfilled, happy woman.”