Pro-abortion academicians bemoans drop in abortions in Ohio

By Dave Andrusko

When I had read most of “Understanding The Drop In Abortions In Ohio,” I must admit I didn’t quite understand why Ann Thompson of WVXU radio had interviewed Michelle McGowan.  

To be sure I had a clue when we read that Professor Michelle McGowan in a “Research Associate in the departments of pediatrics and women’s gender and sexuality studies” at the University of Cincinnati. Not exactly a hotbed of pro-life activism, you would suspect.

Then, the light went on. Because of “more than 15 changes to the law regulating abortion” in Ohio, “McGowan finds abortion access in Ohio has become a lot more cumbersome.” She tells Thompson

“More than half of surgical abortion clinics in the state have closed or have changed to only offer medication abortions and that has meant for people who are seeking abortion they have fewer options about where they can access care.”

More specifically (according to Thompson’s story), “She and the Ohio Policy Evaluation Network (OPEN) are trying to understand what the downstream implications of those regulations have been for Ohioans.”

Then, near the end, the explanation. McGowan thinks “moving abortions to some hospitals might be the answer.”

“Abortion care needs to be understood as part of a broader spectrum of reproductive health care across the lifespan and be integrated more broadly into other settings that provide reproductive health care like hospitals and private practices.” 

In English, in “broadening access,” the objective is to corrupt hospitals and private practices. The savvier pro-abortionists have long worried that performing almost all abortions in stand-alone abortion clinics was a recipe for abortion—and abortionists—becoming marginalized. Moving the slaughter of unborn babies into mainstream medicine would solve many problems.

Then, we’re told, “The New England Journal of Medicine published their research Wednesday, which looked into how complicated abortion care has become in Ohio.” Aha! 

So, off the NEJM.

What do we learn?

They’d dubbed the uncertainty of whether women can abort on schedule where they want “Abortion care churn.” To be fair, the researchers are honest enough to admit there is more going on that abortion sloganeers would have you believe:

Restrictions imposed by state legislatures, executive actions, and public health orders contribute to abortion care churn, but so do factors such as clinics’ financial sustainability and staffing arrangements and owners’ personal life decisions.

What to do? Here’s the final paragraph:

Courts could consider care churn when they assess burdens that legislation imposes on people seeking abortions. When the ways in which care churn quietly erodes services at open clinics are documented, judges may see the value of speedy injunctions against laws threatening clinic stability. Capturing the burden of abortion care churn may also spur heretofore-complacent policymakers and health care workers who don’t provide abortion care to appreciate the multifaceted effects of political and institutional compromises that chip away at abortion access. Advocates can push for clearer media coverage and ensure that their own messaging reinforces clarity about the status of abortion. Pandemic-related adaptations should be sensitive to the context of the laws, policies, and practices that affect open clinics and that can cause patients to forgo care, wait longer for care, pay more to reach care sites, or be denied their preferred kind of abortion care. “This clinic stays open” may be the mantra in Toledo and elsewhere, but patients deserve so much more than that.

Again, let’s translated this into what they want.

*Judges already often issue injunctions the same day a bill is signed into law. How much speedier can you get? And in some cases the ACLU plies the judge ahead of time even before the bill becomes law so he can enjoin the law within hours of its enactment.

*Those who don’t currently provide abortions should, because they should “appreciate the multifaceted effects of political and institutional compromises that chip away at abortion access.”

*Better media coverage. Are they kidding? With a handful of exceptions, the coverage provided by most media outlets functions as extensions of the Abortion Industry’s talking points.

They don’t need to “ensure that their own messaging reinforces clarity about the status of abortion.” They do anyway. If they didn’t, media will do it for them.

Ohio’s abortion numbers are going down. As the news story notes in its first sentence, “In the last decade, the number of abortions in Ohio has decreased by about 7,000 a year.”

To McGowan, that’s a tragedy. To 7,000 unborn human beings, it’s a blessing.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.