Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortionists’ post-HB2 imaginings grow wilder by the day

Dave Andrusko
Image

Although it’s only been a week since the Texas Senate passed HB 2, like an avalanche picking up momentum, the tale that pro-abortionists spin of a dystopian future grows darker and darker, more and more ominous, and less and less connected to reality.

They are not reacting well to a succession of pro-life laws (like HB 2) that say such awful things as you can’t separate the head from the torso of a pain-capable unborn child and it will no longer be okay for hellholes like Kermit Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society abortion clinic to go unregulated and uninspected for decades at a time.

What I hadn’t seen until yesterday was the apocalyptic prediction that the clinic regulation portion of these bills will not only “regulate [abortion] clinics out of existence,” but that what will follow will be worse than the days of “back alley abortions.”

There is so much wrong in Amanda Marcotte’s Daily Beast long post that it would require a response twice as long to get to all of it. So, while what follows is extensive, trust me, it could have been much lengthier.

Here’s the headline and subhead: “From Back Alleys to Abortion Drugs: With Texas trying to get around Roe v. Wade by regulating clinics out of existence, Amanda Marcotte talks to historians about why abortion access in red states will actually be worse than in the 1950s.”

The “historians” is actually one, Rickie Solinger. I’ve written about her twice, once in passing in a book review for “First Things,” and then at much greater length for NRL News (which we are re-running today). We’ll return to her in a second.

Marcotte’s argument is, to be polite, convoluted, so here goes.

Like all abortion advocates, Marcotte says that the new clinic regulations (in this case in Texas) will close practically all the abortion clinics. We heard this in Virginia, we heard this in Pennsylvania, we will ALWAYS hear this.

We’ve already addressed this canard which is so transparently false that even some of the usual suspects are already walking it back. Our most recent story on this was “Planned Parenthood exaggerates impact of abortion clinic regulations to raise money,” http://nrlc.cc/13imMRN.

But it’s the kind of free-floating, the sky-is-falling threat the abortion industry rolls out every time their lethal style is marginally cramped by laws to protect women and babies.

Solinger’s function is to prove that things will be even worse in the (invented) scenario where a given state’s abortion clinics are effectively shut down by regulation. How can it be worse than the days of “back alley abortions”?

Back in 2008 I wrote a review for First Things (www.firstthings.com/article/2008/11/briefly-noted-12) about a pro-abortion anthology to which Solinger contributed an essay. She conceded —contrary to everything we’d been told countless times—that pro-choice advocates knew that prior to Roe there actually were “astonishingly high rates of technical proficiency” among those who performed abortions!

Those “skilled practitioners” performed illegal abortions “as a form of protest against unfair laws banning abortions” (according to Solinger/Marcotte) at a time when abortion was illegal in most cases in almost all states. They warn/predict that this kind of “thriving black market in abortion that was notable for the professionalism and competence of most people offering illegal abortions” won’t exist but I’m not entirely sure I understand why.

I THINK it’s because they are saying (a) there will be plenty of states where abortion clinics will still be unregulated and/or under-inspected—think California and New York— and thus (b) there won’t be the cache attached to “fighting the system,” and because there will be places to abort that means (c) there won’t be the urgency to perform abortions there was back in the bad old days.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

This is where Solinger’s argument sprouts wings. It IS true, she maintains, that there were terrible “back alley abortions” but they were not performed by the “skilled practitioners” she’s lauded but were the product of attempts at self-abortion. (What she manages to avoid addressing is how it obviously follows that the number of women who died from “illegal abortions” was grossly inflated, as abortionist-turned-pro-lifer Dr. Bernard Nathanson has written, numbers made up on the fly.)

With the imaginary scenario where most abortion clinics are closed (in “red” states), that means “the huge numbers of women who can’t make a multiday journey to another state to get an abortion will have no access to safe providers at all,” Marcotte argues. “Places like Texas may actually have worse abortion access than they did in the 1960s.”

But what about chemical abortions? That’s the “one other factor that changes the story.” Here Marcotte runs head-on into an important pro-abortion talking point.

Remember, in this new world women supposedly won’t have the time or resources to have a surgical abortion (although the word surgical is not used, that’s what Marcotte is talking about). So the “abortion pill” RU-486 replaces the “coat hanger” as the agent of self-abortion.

But remember everybody but Marcotte is singing off a different page of music: chemical abortions are ridiculously safe. But in order to keep the nightmare scenario on course, Marcotte tells us “Pills present their own problems, of course, since an incorrect dose can lead to incomplete miscarriage and even infection.”

Thus “Emergency rooms will likely start treating patients who botched self-abortions, something that hasn’t been a problem in 40 years, but at least they won’t be showing up with perforated uteruses,” she writes. “In fact, most of them will be indistinguishable from plain old miscarrying patients and may not even register on the national consciousness as botched, illegal abortions.”

And on and on and on.

Some abortion clinics will close not because of “draconian” requirements but because they should never have been open in the first place and choose not to put the money in to upgrade their facilities. Or, as Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon explained yesterday, because the Megatron of the abortion industry—Planned Parenthood—wants to close down clinics that aren’t huge profit centers (largely because they do not do abortions) in order to build gigantic abortion hubs.

The rest of Marcotte’s argument alternates between silly and contradictory. But it is helpful to be reminded by a pro-abortion partisan that the legend of back alley abortions and thousands of women dying from illegal abortions was made out of whole cloth.

Reprinted with permission from NRLC


Advertisement

In-utero laser surgery saves unborn twins

Dave Andrusko
Dave Andrusko
Image

A tip of the hat to ABC 13 News which broadcasts in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia and especially to reporter Lucy Bustamente for her terrific story about Ella and Anna Springer. The twins were born February 21 at 32 weeks and are doing fine.

However, no one could be sure there would be a happy outcome when Crystal Springer, then 22 weeks pregnant, learned that her babies had a condition known as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.

TTTS is rare and potentially lethal, and occurs only in identical twins. In TTTS one sibling, called the recipient, takes too much blood from the other–the “donor twin”–who can suffer stunted growth as a result, or die.

More specifically, “The shared placenta contains abnormal blood vessels, which connect the umbilical cords and circulations of the twins,” according to the Twin to Twin Transfusion Foundation. “The common placenta may also be shared unequally by the twins, and one twin may have a share too small to provide the necessary nutrients to grow normally or even survive.”

When Mrs. Springer and husband Nick, a sailor on USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, learned that Ella and Anna had TTTS, “I felt like I failed them,” Mrs. Springer told Bustamente. “I thought I did something wrong to cause this.”

But “they went right from the doctor’s office to Eastern Virginia Medical School to meet with Jena Miller, MD, a Maternal-Fetal Medicine specialist,” Bustamente explained. Dr. Miller counseled that they operate immediately because the undernourished baby could go into heart failure. Miller recommended a laser procedure–performed in the womb– to separate the blood vessels.

The December 9 operation went “perfectly,” Miller explained, but the babies weren’t out of the woods yet. “Dr. Miller knew still it was not time to celebrate,” Bustamente told her viewers. “The twins had a 40% chance of dying since the [abnormal blood] vessels could form again.”

Thankfully, they did not.

The couple wanted Dr. Miller to deliver the twins, because she had done so much for them and their children. She made it just in time to perform the C-Section on February 21. Anna was born healthy at 5 pounds, seven ounces. Ella weighed in at 4 pounds, seven ounces, and also was healthy.

The girls went home after six weeks in the Special Care Nursery at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, and there is every reason to believe Anna and Ella will develop normally.

“The new Sentara EVMS Fetal Care Center at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital provides in-utero treatment for many fetal conditions once considered life threatening or treatable only after birth,” ABC Channel 13 News reported. “It’s the only site of care in Virginia and one of few on the East Coast to perform laser therapy for TTTS.”

And the Springers were the first beneficiaries. As Mr. Springer told Bustamente, they have twin girls “who sleep through the night and eat well.”

Reprinted with permission from National Right to Life News


Advertisement

Wednesday begins two days of expert testimony in case of man who slipped abortifacient to girlfriend

Dave Andrusko
Dave Andrusko
Image

It seemingly came out of the blue. John Andrew Welden admitted tricking his then-girlfriend Remee Jo Lee into taking misoprostol (Cytotec)last March with the intention of causing Ms. Lee to miscarry her 6-7-week-old unborn baby. His lawyers had worked out a plea bargain so that Welden pleaded guilty to lesser charges of consumer product tampering and conspiracy to commit mail fraud as part of a plea bargain to avoid first-degree murder charges under the NRLC-inspired Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

The September agreement between prosecutors and defense attorney Todd Foster recommended a prison term of 13 years and eight months for Welden. And then….

Last month U.S. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara, clearly influenced by a court filing submitted in June by Welden’s attorney, Todd Foster, told both parties that “The Court has grave concerns with regard to whether there exists a true factual basis to support” the plea bargain parties have already signed.

Foster’s filing included an affidavit from Dr. Rebecca Allen, who teaches obstetrics and gynecology at the medical school at Brown University, who “opined that it would be ‘impossible’ for one 200 microgram dose to have caused serious bodily harm and also ‘impossible’ for anyone to definitively say that it induced Lee’s abortion,” according to Patty Ryan, reporting for the Tampa Bay Times.

Judge Lazzara delayed the sentencing and promised to take testimony from experts on the “potency” of Misoprostol—specifically whether a single 200 microgram dose could have induced Ms. Lee’s miscarriage. That is what the court will hear today and tomorrow.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Originally a federal grand jury indicted Weldon on two federal charges, one of them a murder charge made possible by the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act legislation that was instigated by NRLC and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004. Had Weldon been convicted on that charge, Weldon would have faced a mandatory life sentence without parole.

Weldon told Ms. Lee that his physician father said that she had an infection and he was bringing her antibiotics. After scratched identifying markings off the Cytotec pills, Welden then put the fraudulent label on the empty pill bottle and put the altered Cytotec pills inside. (Cytotec can be used to induce contractions.)

Welden “also affixed a second label to the bottle reading, ‘Amoxicillin: 125mg oral tablet,’ a common antibiotic,” according to reporter Elaine Silverstrini. Ms. Lee began feeling severe pain and cramps, The Tampa Times reported, and “On March 31 [2013], she went to Tampa General Hospital, where she was told the unborn child was dead.” Ms. Lee’s baby was estimated to be 6-7 weeks old.

Reprinted with permission from NRLC


Advertisement

Skeptical panel hears arguments against portions of pro-life Texas bill

Dave Andrusko
Dave Andrusko
Image
Image
Image

A three-judge federal appeals court panel Monday heard an hour-long debate over the constitutionality of two sections of HB 2, a pro-life 2013 Texas law.

The consensus, for what it’s worth, among media accounts is that judges Jennifer Walker Elrod, Catharina Haynes, and Edith Jones were skeptical of the plaintiff’s arguments made on behalf of Planned Parenthood and a number of abortionists by Janet Crepps, a lawyer for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel did not indicate when a decision would be rendered on U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel’s October ruling which overturned portions of HB2. Whichever way the panel rules, the case is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs challenged two portions of HB2. The first requires that abortionists have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. The second addresses how chemical abortifacients are administered. The law requires the abortionist be in the same room as the woman receiving the chemical abortifacients (which is not the case with so-called ‘web-cam” abortions) and that abortionists follow the protocol approved by the FDA for the use of the two-drug “RU-486” abortion technique.

Crepps and Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell sparred over the intent and the impact of the provision requiring that abortionists have admitting privileges in a local hospital.

Crepps argued that the law would force abortion clinics to close, and that the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas in particular would be without an abortionist. As a result pregnant women seeking abortions would have to drive 150 miles to have an abortion, Crepps told the panel.

Mitchell rejoined that the plaintiff’s “burden is to show that that 30-mile radius is unconstitutionally burdensome everywhere through the state.” He added, “And they have not met that burden here.”

A key question raised in court and in court filings was whether an absence of abortionists stemmed from HB2 or unrelated factors. For example, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated that “there is no medically sound basis for H.B. 2′s privileges requirement.”

Judge Haynes asked (according to the paraphrase of Andrea Grimes of RhRealitycheck.org) why “if ACOG’s group of thousands of OB-GYNs in Texas felt abortion was an essential procedure, more of them didn’t perform abortions themselves. If more of them didn’t sign on to perform the procedure, thereby reducing access to abortion, she said, ‘that is not a creature of HB 2′s making.’”

Crepps responded that doctors [abortionists] are afraid of violence and harassment. To which Judge Jones asked, “And what did Dr. Gosnell do?” a reference to the abortionist convicted in 2013 of three counts of first degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter.

Pro-abortionists say that more than a dozen abortion clinics have closed because of the law, although some (apparently four) have reopened. The obvious question is how many others will sudden ly reopen in the weeks and months to come.

In a November 22 court filing, the state of Texas argued that the new requirements promote the health and safety of women and advance the state’s “interest in protecting fetal life.”

“Although some opponents of (the law) have questioned whether the statute’s health-and-safety benefits will outweigh the costs imposed on abortion providers, the Supreme Court allows states to resolve disagreements within the medical community over the proper standards of practice.”

As NRL News Today reported, on October 28 Judge Yeakel ruled that the admitting privileges provision places an unconstitutional burden on women’s access to abortion. Three days later a 5th Circuit panel (which included two of the judges who heard oral arguments yesterday) allowed Texas to enforce the law while the state appealed Yeakel’s decision.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In a 20-page decision, Judges Priscilla R. Owen, Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Catharina Haynes wrote, “[T]here is a substantial likelihood that the state will prevail in its argument that Planned Parenthood failed to establish an undue burden on women seeking abortions or that the hospital-admitting-privileges requirement creates a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.” (See nrlc.cc/1iuZmDM.)

On November 28 the U.S. Supreme Court voted not to block (“stay”) the appeals court’s action allowing the law to be enforced.

HB 2 was passed in July by the Texas Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Perry. The overall bill is best known for pro-abortion state Senator Wendy Davis’s filibuster which temporarily foiled the will of the legislature and the people of Texas. Davis subsequently used the enormous media attention she received as a springboard to announce that she was running for governor.

As NRL News Today has reported, the silence of pro-abortionists was deafening on Texas’ Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. That law which prohibits aborting babies capable of feeling pain, was never challenged and went into effect in October, the same day Yeakel issued his injunction.

Reprinted with permission from NRLC


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook