By Dave Andrusko
Some of the most revealing comments ever about abortion have come from “abortion providers.” In one sense that would seem obvious. Who knows more about the day-to-day killing that the “abortion doctor”? (Actually, come to think of it, the nurses who clean up after them might.)
In another sense, however, if we are told by abortion defenders that the “practice” of abortion is endlessly “stigmatized,” why would they be candid?
I have an answer. How about if they were speaking at a session of their fellow “professionals”?
Thanks to Nancy Valko for alerting us to a panel that assembled at the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG) annual meeting. I went to the link Nancy provided and found the story by Molly Walker, Staff Writer, for MedPage Today.
The panel, she writes,
included several abortion providers, who offered their views on the “incendiary” coverage of abortion, and that the abortion providers themselves can get lost in the rhetoric and the politics — even when it’s their practice that is affected the most.
Judging by Walker’s story, these abortionists were annoyed for three major reasons. Lots and lots of pro-life legislation has been introduced which can make “day-to-day patient care especially difficult for doctors on the front lines.”
Naturally the worse case scenarios are offered in a misleading way rather than such requirements as provided full-blown informed consent, banning abortion in which the abortionists rips a living unborn baby to pieces; or saying it’s not okay to abort a child because she is a girl and not a boy.
What else gets to them? A study of two years of media coverage
found that abortion was covered mainly as a “movement” — abortion rights advocates groups versus anti-abortion groups, but that “providers are covered as institutions, not human beings.” Rarely do stories include references to maternal care doctors, or physicians specializing in maternal-fetal medicine — in other words, the doctors actually performing the procedures.
I think I get it. They want to be known as “physicians specializing in maternal-fetal medicine,” not just clogs in the machinery that kills nearly 900,000 babies a year.
Hey, we’re real doctors, too.
What about the third gripe? Rachel Flink-Bochacki, MD, of Albany Medical Center in Albany, New York,
said that providers discussed the “false dichotomy” between being pro-choice and pro-child, adding that it “provoked tension for the provider, and created a burden they had to constantly defend against.”
I couldn’t help thinking of the abortionist who was (I believe) in her second trimester writing about how she felt as she aborted a woman. Whatever qualms she may have had, they evaporated.
But there decided upside to end Walker’s story. If the abortionist can tell a woman she’s a mom and not someone who ends the lives of babies, the “client” will “understand.” Understand what?
I’m not entirely sure but Flink-Bochacki tells Walker
that a provider becoming a parent tended to reinforce her commitment and passion for her profession. Flink-Bochacki said that this provider/patient bonding through shared experiences could also potentially help to prevent patients from feeling marginalized, given the stigma that both provider and patient experience together.
Even moms have abortions. Even abortionists who are moms have abortions. I guess that is supposed to simultaneously reinforce the abortionist’s commitment to snuffing out helpless unborn children and relieve the aborting woman’s of her sense of “stigma.”
More likely, it is defense mechanism that helps the abortionist avoid admitting to herself that she is misusing her skills and assists the aborting woman to stifle her conscience.