Do we need to examine celebrating late-term abortion?

Our country has been rocked by an abortion debate, in our daily conversations, across social media, and in our legislatures. The debate has to do specifically with late-term abortion, a procedure which is often as misunderstood as it is inhumane.

It is worth giving many who support late-term abortion the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps such supporters incorrectly think that such abortions rarely happen, or are illegal, or are only performed in the most extreme of cases, such as life of the mother or if a fetus is deemed “non-viable” or “incompatible with life” because of an abnormality.

The late-term abortion procedure, explained by former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino, is so barbaric that even one performed is one too many. CDC figures from 2015, of 1.3 percent, may seem small. But that amounts to thousands of late-term abortion performed on pain-capable children.

Abortion is never medically necessary and it is safer and quicker for a woman to have an emergency c-section than a third-trimester abortion. An abnormality also does not make a person any less deserving of life. There are resources for families, including perinatal hospices, especially for abnormalities where a child may not survive for very long after birth.

These examples also do not make up the majority of late-term abortions. Studies from pro-choice sources confirm that many late-term abortions are performed on healthy women with healthy fetuses. Those willing to refer for or provide such abortions acknowledge few, if any, were done for health concerns.

The procedure may even take multiple days, hence why an emergency c-section is not only more humane, but quicker for the woman. On the matter of safety, it is more dangerous to have a late-term procedure than it is to have an abortion earlier in pregnancy or to give birth.

Why do women, many who are young, a minority, and/or have had a late-term abortion before, seek out the procedure then? It has to do with women not knowing they were pregnant until later in their pregnancy, as well as logistical factors such as deciding on the abortion, taking time off from work, scheduling the procedure, etc.

These logistical concerns ought to be addressed. But it must be acknowledged that this does not equate a medical emergency for the woman or the fetus.

What is perhaps most misunderstood when it comes to exceptions allowing for late-term abortions is for reasons of “health.” The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in all 50 states. It is its companion case of Doe v. Bolton where the health exception arises, however. In this 7–2 decision, comprised of all men, the Court laid out that health could refer to “physical, emotional, psychological, familial… wellbeing.” Such a framework is broad and open to interpretation, abuse even. Before his untimely death, late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller would perform third-trimester abortions on young women and girls because the desire to attend prom, or a rock concert, or stress about the pregnancy was deemed a health risk.

New York State on January 22 passed the Reproductive Health Act (RHA). It was heavily championed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, who sought its passage for 12 years, and, upon having a Democratic-controlled legislature, threatened to not sign the state budget if the RHA did not find its way to his desk. Not only did Cuomo sign it, he ordered landmarks such as the One World Trade Center be lit pink in celebration.

The RHA allows for abortions for any reason up until 24-weeks, which is about the sixth month of pregnancy. After 24-weeks, a woman may have an abortion is her health is deemed at risk, though as explained above, this is a slippery slope when it comes to late-term elective abortions.

Abortion was already accessible in New York State before the RHA look effect. In fact, New York City has been known as the late-term abortion capital of the world. In recent years and in some parts of New York City, according to public health records, more babies were aborted than born.

The RHA has had other tragic consequences, which may not have been realized by those supporting or even sponsoring it. They were seen merely days after the RHA became law, as a result of the repeal of the state’s fetal homicide law.

Thirty-five year old Jennifer Irigoyen was found stabbed to death on February 4. She was five months pregnant. Her killer cannot be charged for double homicide, even if the fetus was the result of a “wanted” pregnancy. Had Irigoyen survived, she still would have had no recourse with regards to losing her baby.

New York is not the only state which has or is considering loosening its abortion laws. Lawmakers in Virginia recently considered the “Repeal Act,” which would remove abortion regulations currently in place. Although it was tabled on January 29, it may come up again. When asked by Republican Delegate C. Todd Gilbert, if abortion would be permitted when “it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth… has physical signs that she’s about to give birth” and is “dilating,” Democratic Delegate Kathy Tran, the bill’s sponsor, said her “bill would allow that.”

Democratic Governor Ralph Northam expressed his support for the bill during a January 30 radio interview, though he initially attempted to deflect by claiming he thought “this was really blown out of proportion.” He went on to say that “If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother,” Northam said. Emphasis is added.

Pro-lifers raised the alarm about such legislation. Yours truly attended a rally held on February 2 in Lorton, Virginia. Need us pro-lifers be the only ones, however? Should we not all be outraged that one governor would light up city landmarks in celebration of a partisan late-term abortion bill? Or that another would have to answer for claims that he endorsed infanticide, which he in some ways actually doubled down on?

Abortion, regardless of one’s opinion, happens because a woman does not want to be but is pregnant. Something happened which she did not want to happen. Pro-choicers respond abortion access and the right or choice to make the decision is what’s celebrated. That may be appealing, to some. But abortion is not appealing. One cannot objectively change that something unplanned occurred. If anything is cheered, it ought to be contraception or people choosing abstinence.

Pro-choice used to mean calling for “safe, legal, rare” abortions. Pro-choicers recognized abortion was an unfortunate, difficult decision. At least they used to.

Americans may not consider abortion to be “moral,” but trends show many don’t want to it completely illegal. Polls consistently show this is limited to the first-trimester. Most Americans, including pro-choice ones, want to ban abortion past 20-weeks. This is not shared by the Democratic Party, however.

In his February 5’s State of the Union address, President Donald Trump mentioned his support for paid family leave, to Democrats’ applause. They did not similarly applaud the need to address late-term abortion.

The discussion from our federal lawmakers regarding late-term abortion and its consequences comes not only from the President. Recently, Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska sought unanimous approval in the U.S. Senate for his Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It was stopped by Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington State, who claimed it was “a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill.” She doubled down on her remarks via Twitter, claiming the legislation “attack[s] women’s rights and health.” Senators will have a chance to go on the record for supporting or opposing the legislation, when it is up for a roll-call vote on February 25. If passed, the law will not affect Roe v. Wade or abortion laws for before a baby is born. It instead merely expands upon a 2002 law which granted legal status to a baby born alive from an abortion attempt, by tasking a physician with the legal obligation of providing medical care for that baby.

Under the RHA, abortion providers are not legally obligated to provide medical care to a baby born alive from an abortion attempt. Information from the CDC and a committee investigation, as well as testimony from nurses and other medical professionals confirms that this does occur, and that these babies are often left to die, which highlights a glimpse of the horror that is late-term abortion and infanticide happening in the United States today.

It is time for the pro-choice movement to examine itself and what it stands for, particularly whether such legislation is an embodiment of that choice. Is it really worth celebrating.