We’ve come a long way since the days of abortion activists demanding that the gruesome practice of killing an unborn child be “safe, legal, and rare.”
Now, pro-aborts have evolved to demand abortion “on demand and without apology.” Where many on the pro-life side of the issue would see abortion limitations and regulations as an unjust concession that simply protects some babies from murder, pro-aborts see even the most timid regulations as an assault on their so-called “reproductive rights.”
One such law, Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, which requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30-mile radius, is generating extreme pro-abortion hysteria.
Pro-abortion activists in Texas are frantic that the Louisiana law, which is set to be reviewed in the upcoming United States Supreme Court session, has the potential to overturn the precedent set by the Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt decision that the state cannot “create an undue burden” for women seeking abortions
The fact that abortion activists are protesting a law that would, theoretically, make abortion “safer” (for the mother, anyway) by clearing a path for her abortionist to admit her to the hospital in the event that her uterus is perforated, she retains any remains of her baby or placenta, reacts negatively to anesthesia, or she experiences any other of the myriad risks to various abortion procedures, is insane enough.
The rhetoric they’re using to protest the law, however, is far beyond the pale.
According to The Dallas Morning News, Whole Woman’s Health CEO and founder Amy Hagstrom Miller stated that the admitting privileges requirement for abortionists “is unnecessary and unfair because other nonsurgical physicians are not required to have admitting privileges.”
“The physicians that have hospital privileges are doctors that are doing surgeries in hospitals,” she said. “Abortion’s not a surgery, and so someone who provides abortion wouldn’t have the privileges any more than, you know, a family doctor who removes a mole in an office setting or, a gastroenterologist who does a colonoscopy in an office setting or a dentist who has to do a root canal.”
Yes, she really said that.
Either Miller would have you believe that late-term and surgical abortions, some of the riskiest types of abortion procedures for the mother (of course, all successful abortion procedures end a human life), don’t exist, or she hopes you’re ignorant enough to believe the official reports that such procedures are as safe for the mother as having a tooth worked on.
She really wants you to believe that stretching and scraping a woman’s womb is no different than having a mole removed.
We know that’s a lie. We know that along with taking the life of an unborn child, abortion procedures pose serious risks to the mother.
As LifeSite News writer Dave Andrusko so perfectly stated, “If something goes wrong in removing a mole, the patient may have a scar. If something goes wrong in an abortion, as the case with a woman cited by Judge Smith, she could wind up needing to undergo an emergency dilation and curettage—or worse.”
This is what it has come down to after decades of Christians staying nice and safe and cozy in their pews. Regulation on how to make a procedure that ends the life of an unborn baby “safer” for the mother of the baby while the proponents of legalized mass slaughter compare unborn babies to teeth or moles, small bodily imperfections that need to be removed.
We have been asleep people. This is not a battle for semantics. This is a battle for the beating hearts of millions upon millions of unborn babies whose lives remain at risk at the hands of greedy abortion clinic doctors and self-serving legislators.
If you’ve ever wondered what you’d do during the Holocaust or of you’d lived in Soviet Russia…you’re doing it now.
It’s time to wake up and act.
If you appreciate the work we are doing to fight the leftist assault on our values, please consider a small donation to help us continue. Thank you so much!